I have two procedures in oracle which define a parameter differently, even though the underlying data is the same. In code we represent it as an integer.
procedure GetByNum(..., vRegionID in number, ...)
procedure GetByInt(...., vRegionID in integer, ...)
In java we always define the field as an Integer (and in db too)
public Integer getRegionID() {
return 100;
}
Is there a way to pass this (in java) integer to both procedures using the same OracleTypes.*? We use a custom base wrapper around org.springframework.jdbc.object.StoredProcedure to call both of them. Modifying the stored procedures is not allowed for right now, so all that is left is fixing up the java.
Can you pass getRegionID as OracleTypes.NUMBER to the getByInt proc?
Can you pass it as OracleTypes.INTEGER to getByNum, which expects in number?
Another, magical way?
This might seem simple, but I assume i'm not allowed to mangle parameters like this. I hope thats not true!
Edit:
Using OracleTypes.INTEGER to pass to procedure ... (param in number) worked
Don't know if this is just environment specific though
Hoping for a definitive answer, so I can have them start using the new wrapper without worrying about an unforeseen issue.
INTEGER is a ANSI standard type, which Oracle describes as a subtype of NUMBER as NUMBER(38). Therefore, anywhere that takes an INTEGER as a parameter should also accept a NUMBER so long as there are no fractional parts.
Related
Consider the following example:
create or replace function f(n integer) return integer as
begin
return n;
end;
/
begin
dbms_output.put_line(f(3.8));
end;
/
3.8
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
This makes no sense to me. Obviously, PL/SQL simply ignores the integer specification, both on entering the function and on exiting it. Is this simply a bug? Is it a design choice, made deliberately by the language developers?
Here is why I find this confusing. Compare to the following example:
declare
x integer;
begin
x := 3.8;
dbms_output.put_line(x);
end;
/
4
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
In this example, the data type specification is complied with. PL/SQL doesn't throw an error, but at least it performs an implicit coercion and it does not violate the data type declared for x - the variable stores the value 4, an integer, not 3.8.
So, how does PL/SQL do the function call thing in the first example? As far as I understand (never having been trained formally in computing), whenever the compiler or interpreter finds a function call it creates a stack frame, with variables for the arguments passed to the function and for the return value to come back from the function. Aren't these variables, when the stack frame is created, supposed to be the same data type as specified in the function declaration? If the stack frame has a field of integer data type for the argument 3.8, how come that is not coerced to 4 before it is even stored in the corresponding variable? And the same thing for the return value: if the function returns 3.8 but the caller expects an integer (and therefore the corresponding variable in the stack frame should be integer), how is it able to accept the return value 3.8?
And, most disturbing - why is this behavior different from the behavior when explicitly declared variables are involved (as in my second example)?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
The answer is found in the documentation for Oracle Database (to which your question has absolutely no relation whatsoever).
Firstly, INTEGER in the said database is a synonym for NUMBER(38). Upon assignment to a NUMBER(38) variable x, as in your second example, according to the assignment rules the NUMBER (with arbitrary precision) literal 3.8 is rounded.
In your first example though no assignment happens because IN parameters to PL/SQL subprograms are passed by reference and the same reference (to the NUMBER value 3.8) is returned.
In my Modelica system model, I have a replaceable package (medium, fluid properties) and a replaceable model (pressure loss model). Can I somehow check whether a certain model or package is selected? The following approach does not work, but maybe explains what I want to achieve:
replaceable package Medium = Modelica.Media.Water.WaterIF97_ph;
Boolean isWater = (Medium == Modelica.Media.Water.WaterIF97_ph);
I was thinking of something similar like in python, were you can use type(variable) or isinstance(object, class). This approach seems to be doable in many languages, but is it possible in Modelica?
One workaround I thought of was to add some (or use an existing) constant inside the replaceable model/package and use that in the comparison, e.g. constant String mediumName or constant Integer correlationID, but I would see that as a workaround.
The workaround seems to work when using Integers, but not when using Strings. Any comment?
With comparison of constant Integer, I can calculate the correct value for the Boolean, but I hit another problem (in Dymola at least): When I use the Boolean in the annotation Dialog enable, it does not work. Is there a rule when the value of the Boolean gets evaluated?
The medium packages already have a property mediumName that you can compare, for instance using the code:
Boolean isWater = Modelica.Utilities.Strings.isEqual("WaterIF97", Medium.mediumName);
Best regards,
Rene Just Nielsen
I was working on a simple task yesterday, just needed to sum the values in a handful of dropdown menus to display in a textbox via Javascript. Unexpectedly, it was just building a string so instead of giving me the value 4 it gave me "1111". I understand what was happening; but I don't understand how.
With a loosely typed language like Javascript or PHP, how does the computer "know" what type to treat something as? If I just type everything as a var, how does it differentiate a string from an int from an object?
What the + operator will do in Javascript is determined at runtime, when both actual arguments (and their types) are known.
If the runtime sees that one of the arguments is a string, it will do string concatenation. Otherwise it will do numeric addition (if necessary coercing the arguments into numbers).
This logic is coded into the implementation of the + operator (or any other function like it). If you looked at it, you would see if typeof(a) === 'string' statements (or something very similar) in there.
If I just type everything as a var
Well, you don't type it at all. The variable has no type, but any actual value that ends up in that variable has a type, and code can inspect that.
I have a public method which uses a variable (only in the scope of the public method) I pass as a parameter we will call A, this method calls a private method multiple times which also requires the parameter.
At present I am passing the parameter every time but it looks weird, is it bad practice to make this member variable of the class or would the uncertainty about whether it is initialized out way the advantages of not having to pass it?
Simplified pseudo code:
public_method(parameter a)
do something with a
private_method(string_a, a)
private_method(string_b, a)
private_method(string_c, a)
private_method(String, parameter a)
do something with String and a
Additional information: parameter a is a read only map with over 100 entries and in reality I will be calling private_method about 50 times
I had this same problem myself.
I implemented it differently in 3 different contexts to see hands-on what are result using 3 different strategies, see below.
Note that I am type of programmer that makes many changes to the code always trying to improve it. Thus I settle only for the code that is amenable to changes, readbale, would you call this "flexible" code. I settle only for very clear code.
After experimentation, I came to these results:
Passing a as parameter is perfectly OK if you have one or two - short number - of such values. Passing in parmeters has very good visibility, clarity, clear passing lines, well visible lifetime (initialization points, destruction points), amenable to changes, easy to track.
If number of such values begin to grow to >= 5-6 values, I swithc to approach #3 below.
Passing values through class members -- did not do good to clarity of my code, eventually I got rid of it. It makes for less clear code. Code becomes muddled. I did not like it. It had no advantages.
As alternative to (1) and (2), I adopted Inner class approach, in cases when amount of such values is > 5 (which makes for too long argument list).
I pack those values into small Inner class and pass such object by reference as argument to all internal members.
Public function of a class usually creates an object of Inner class (I call is Impl or Ctx or Args) and passes it down to private functions.
This combines clarity of arg passing with brevity. It's perfect.
Good luck
Edit
Consider preparing array of strings and using a loop rather than writing 50 almost-identical calls. Something like char *strings[] = {...} (C/C++).
This really depends on your use case. Does 'a' represent a state that your application/object care about? Then you might want to make it a member of your object. Evaluate the big picture, think about maintenance, extensibility when designing structures.
If your parameter a is a of a class of your own, you might consider making the private_method a public method for the variable a.
Otherwise, I do not think this looks weird. If you only need a in just 1 function, making it a private variable of your class would be silly (at least to me). However, if you'd need it like 20 times I would do so :P Or even better, just make 'a' an object of your own that has that certain function you need.
A method should ideally not pass more than 7 parameters. Using the number of parameters more than 6-7 usually indicates a problem with the design (do the 7 parameters represent an object of a nested class?).
As for your question, if you want to make the parameter private only for the sake of passing between private methods without the parameter having anything to do with the current state of the object (or some information about the object), then it is not recommended that you do so.
From a performance point of view (memory consumption), reference parameters can be passed around as method parameters without any significant impact on the memory consumption as they are passed by reference rather than by value (i.e. a copy of the data is not created). For small number of parameters that can be grouped together you can use a struct. For example, if the parameters represent x and y coordinates of a point, then pass them in a single Point structure.
Bottomline
Ask yourself this question, does the parameter that you are making as a members represent any information (data) about the object? (data can be state or unique identification information). If the answer to his question is a clear no, then do not include the parameter as a member of the class.
More information
Limit number of parameters per method?
Parameter passing in C#
In XPath it is possible to convert an object to string using the string() function. Now I want to convert the string back to an object.
I do understand it is not possible in some cases (for example for elements), because some information was lost. But it should be possible for simple types, like int or boolean.
I know, for numbers I can use number() function, but I want general mechanism which will work for any simple type variable.
Going to string is easy, because you've told it that you want a string.
Similarly, going to number is easy, because you've told it that you want a number.
But there is no generic way to say 'turn it back into x', because you haven't told it what x is.
(In other words, string() is like a cast like Java/C/C++/C# have. But there is no uncast.)
string() isn't an object serializer, so you can't deserialize.
Why do you want this? Perhaps there is another way of solving your problem.
If your object $x is the number 1234, then string($x) will be the string "1234".
If your object $x is a nodeset of 1000 XML elements, the first one being
<wibble><wobble>1<ping/>2</wobble>34</wibble>
then string($x) will be the string "1234".
The function is not a bijection, you can't have an inverse as many different values map to the same string.
In no language (that I know of) you can cast A to B and then call a magical function that reverts it back to whatever it was before you casted it.
The process of converting some data type into something else is always an unidirectional one - you lose the information what type it was before. That's because the new data type has no way of storing what it was before.
So, what are you trying to do? I strongly suspect that you ask this question because you are tackling a problem from the wrong end.