Can anyone actually explain, in layman's terms, what is a real-world use case for the set operation's options?
While I fully understand what set with merge does, as well as merge beeing a boolean and mergeFields being an array of fieldPaths, I cannot think of cases in which mergeFields might be of any use.
I also understand the fact that mergeFields basically acts like a mask for the object passed to the set operation, but I still cannot think of how is it so useful that it actually got implemented within the SDK.
Can someone shed some light?
After looking through the documentation, there seem to be two reasons why you might want to use one vs the other:
mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields trigger an error when passing in field values that don't currently exist on the document while merge will add in those fields if they don't exist. The error is good for safety purposes if you're concerned about typos/writing to incorrect field paths.
This one is just a guess, but the documentation indicates mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields ignores AND leaves fields untouched while merge ONLY leaves other fields untouched. It's possible there's some performance advantage to using mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields esp for documents with a ton of fields. The difference might be direct access vs still needing to look at unspecified fields to identify the matches in some way.
SetOptions Reference
Related
To prioritize the engineering effort around Requirements in a defined way, I came to the idea to use the information already added for the FMEA.
For this I have created a Stereotype named fmeaRelevant (will be named better later), which has several Tags.
My target now is to first calculate the averages of all of these Tags and then from these the average RPN, which is again a Tag.
For this, I have already created a ConstrainedProperty, which has the respective ConstrainedParameters and Constraints.
BindingConnectors are created between the ConstrainedParameters of the ConstraintProperty and the Tags of the Stereotype.
The Stereotype is assigned to my Requirements.
However, Open ConstraintView ... does not show me anything.
Is there anything I am missing?
P.S.: I am not sure how to provide something like a source code snippet for model content. If one makes a proposal in a comment, I will add this.
You used binding connectors between stereotype properties and constraint parameters? That should not be possible, since they are on different levels. The parameters are on the model level and the stereotype properties are on the language level.
Of course, Rhapsody sometimes allows strange things, so it might well be, that there is a way to get it running.
The RPN relates to an actual hazordous situation. Your model describes this situation and all values relating to the situation should therefore be value properties of the FMEAitem. This element would be defined in a library. By the way, this is how it's done in the new RAAML-specification, which might be a useful reference.
I'd like to learn about using catalogs correctly.
I have about 30 useful content types, about 50 indexes in catalog.xml, and about 45 metadatas. There are just three types which account for most of the site's data - and I may need millions of these. I've been reading, and there's lots to do, but I want to have the basic configuration right before I begin all that.
This page told me that any non-default indexes should not be added to the portal_catalog. I've even read people explaining how removing one, or two of the default indexes makes a performance difference.
My question is: what are the rules for dividing up the indexes into different catalogs, and for selecting which catalog(s) index which type(s)?
So far I have created one additional catalog, used to catalog all indexes for my 'site-setup' objects (which I have caused to no longer be indexed in portal_catalog). The site-setup indexes are very often used, but more rarely modified than others, so I thought it was correct to separate them from objects which are reindexed more often. I'm not sure if that's the main consideration though.
Another similar question (a good example of the kind of thing I want to solve): how would you handle something like secondary workflow review_state variables? I give each workflow's review_state variable an index (and search on them quite often), but some of my workflows are only used on just a few types. (my most prolific objects have secondary workflows...)
I'd be very grateful for advice!
Campbell
This won't cover everything but I'll bring up some points..
Anything not in the portal_catalog won't work with collections, folder_contents view, getFolderContents method, search, portlet collections, related items(I think) and anything else the assumes you're using the portal_catalog.
I like to use an additional catalog when I need to be able to query the data but it only affects a sub-set of the content objects.
Use collective.indexing to speed up indexing operations.
Mount the catalogs on their own mount points so you can cache them differently from the rest of the site(so you can cache the whole catalog). Then, you can even serve the the catalogs from dedicated zeoserver.
Also, if your content doesn't have to be cataloged by the portal_catalog(with all the constraints listed), you may even want to think about if you need it as a full-fledged (archetype|dexterity) type in the first place. You can use a more slim repoze.catalog to catalog arbitrary objects(which could be very simple data) for whatever your purpose is and get even more performance. Or better yet, look into Solr for indexing it for VERY good performance.
On more thing, depending on the type of data you're storing, you could even look into using a relational database for a data store. But I don't know what kind of queries, indexes, data, etc you have...
30 different types seems like a lot but I don't know what your use case is. Care to share? Perhaps there is a better way to do it.
Let's say I'm creating some app documentation. In creating a content type for functions, I have a text field for name, a box for a general description, and a couple other basic things. Now I need something for storing arguments to the function. Ideally, I'd like to input these as key-value pairs, or just two related fields, which can then be repeated as many times as needed for the given function. But I can't find any way to accomplish this.
The closest I've gotten is an abandonded field multigroup module that says to wait for CCK3, which hasn't even produced an alpha yet as far as I can tell and whose project page makes no obvious mention of this multi-group functionality. I also checked the CCK issue queue and don't think I saw it in there, either.
Is there a current viable way of doing this I'm not seeing? Viable includes "you're thinking of this the wrong way and do X instead." I've considered using a "Long text and summary" field, but that smells hackish and I don't know if I'd be setting myself up for side-effects. I'm new to Drupal.
There is the http://drupal.org/project/field_collection module but it's not yet ready. Right now you would need to implement your entity alas to do this :( not easy.
Not sure how well it would work, because it currently does a bit more (eg, forces to group pairs into categories and the keys need to be predefined) but you might want to have a look at http://drupal.org/project/properties.
You could create a these key-value fields on their own: create 2 regular fields that that can be added as often as needed.
So you have a x fields for the keys and x for the values. If this is only for you or other people it might work OK but usability wise, it's very ugly.
If you need to extract the fields from the function, to display it properly in a page template, you should propably use a different approach. Write the function with its arguemnts in a CCK field and in the template extract them as needed. The arguments are always (depending on language) in () and the different arguments are seperated by , so splitting them would by pretty easy.
Background: I have a complex search form that stores the query and it's hash in a cache. Once the cache is set, I redirect to something like /searchresults/e6c86fadc7e4b7a2d068932efc9cc358 where that big long string on the end is the md5 hash of my query. I need to make a new argument for views to know what the hash is good for.
The reason for all this hastle is because my original search form is way to complex and has way to many arguments to consider putting them all into the path and expecting to do the filtering with the normal views arguments.
Now for my question. I have been reading views 2 documentation but not figuring out how to accomplish this custom argument. It doesn't seem to me like this should be as hard as it seems to me like it must be. Leaving aside any knowledge of the veiws api, it would seem that all I need is a callback function that will take the argument from the path as it's only argument and return a list of node id's to filter to.
Can anyone point me to a solution or give me some example code?
Thanks for your help! You guys are great.
PS. I am pretty sure that my design is the best I can come up with, lets don't get off my question and into cross checking my design logic if we can help it.
It's not as easy as you would like to make it.
In views, arguments are used to return objects, fx user, node, term, custom object. So you could make some custom code, to get the "query object". That would only be first step. You then need to get the info from the query object. You could either try making a custom relationship bond with the nodes or build your own filter to make the SQL needed. This can quickly become a confusing time sink.
Instead, I would suggest that you use hook_views_query_alter, which will allow you to alter the query. Since you already have the SQL, it's just a matter of checking for the hash, and if it's there, alter the query. Should be a pretty simple thing to do. Only thing that is a bit tricky, is that you have to make the query with the query object that views uses, but it's not that hard to figure out.
I know there are already some questions on this topic on the site...
I am just trying to understand if it's safe to use ASP.NET Profile Provider with a website with huge traffic?
The way I see it, it's laid out inefficiently. You store property name (which is a string) and property value (which is a string too). If you are just trying to store even age in the profile, you are unnecessarily storing the string "age" in the database over and over whereas with a self-created table, you could just add a column titled age, and no redundancy?
(I am just trying to make sure I am not missing something about it, because I am fairly new to it.)
The profile provider uses an EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value) design deliberately, because profiles in general very commonly have a sparsely populated schema - that is, there are many potential attributes, but only a few will be used for a given single entity, and the few that are used varies widely from one entity to the next.
Let's use a totally arbitrary example - let's say only one in 10 of your users want to provide their age. Making that a column now seems more like a waste, no?
But what if your application makes age mandatory? OK, that column gets populated for everyone. But what if you need to make a note in the profile "user doesn't want to see this obscure dialog anymore". Do you really want a column for every single dialog in your application whether a user wants to see it? Probably not. When you get into the little one-off details of an application of any significant scope, EAV actually becomes the more economical choice.
In the general, it scales quite well (far better than you probably think). In the specific, it doesn't matter - as always, use what works and fix performance problems when they come up. Whatever the scalability limitations of the profile provider are, you'll know when you hit them. I guarantee two things - (1) you'll have to fix a lot of other performance problems you didn't expect before you have to fix that; and (2) if your site is getting enough traffic to break the profile provider, it's a good problem to have.
I agree with Rex M, unless you have a need to do things like sort all your users by age or do other procedures with aggregate profile data. Then you could consider rolling your own. But for just storing properties that you access here and there on a user-by-user basis, Rex M is right.
I do know what you mean. Wouldn't it make sense to supplment the profile provider's table with another table that has columns with mandatory fields? or do you think the overhead of join would not make it not worth it?