As Eduard said, use a custom resource. Now it depends on what you want to do:
If you want to restrict certain Portal pages to a subset of users, create a custom resource (R1 for this example), add it to the pages you want the subset of users to access, and then add Use permission on the R1 resource to an existing or new role. Only users that are members of that role will have access to the pages.
If you want to restrict certain users to a subset of Portal pages (your question), create a custom resource (R2 for this example), add it to all the pages the users should not access, and then add Use permission on the R2 resource to an existing or new role. All other users should be in this role, and they will have access to all the pages, as they did before these changes. Any pages that aren't protected by R2 will be the only pages available to the users that aren't in the role.
James, for this one, there is no easy answer. But first, here are some corrections FYI:
Since what you're passing in to execute contains quotes ("SYSTEM"), surround that with single quotes instead of double quotes
Since the Security.System class is in %SYS, specify the namespace in your command.
So it's this:
csession TEST -U %SYS '##class(Security.System).AutheEnabledGetStored("SYSTEM")'
But the problem is that this expression doesn't output its value, and you can't include "write" at the beginning. You should probably describe exactly what you're trying to do in more detail, and someone here will make a suggestion.
InterSystems IRIS v2019.1 also provides direct access to globals, using a feature called the Native API for .Net. Check the doc for it here.
The Native API for .Net can connect to InterSystems IRIS on the same machine or another machine. On the same machine, the connection speed between .Net and InterSystems IRIS is even faster than with Caché, through the use of a shared memory connection. Read more about it here.
Brendan's comment from the other thread summarizes it nicely. Here's a little more...you have 2 good alternatives to parent-children:
Without using either relationship option, just use a simple reference from the "many/child" class to the "one/parent" class, and add the FK constraint yourself (using "cascade"). This allows bitmap indexes in either class.
Simulate parent-children relationship using one-many. After setting up the one-many relationship, in the Relationship definition in the "many" class, add the bold items shown here: [Cardinality = one, Inverse = Orders, Required, OnDelete = cascade]. This allows bitmap indexes in either class.
To me, the answer is Yes. I guess using CompileAfter signals to another developer that the code doesn't have to be runnable at compile time, but DependsOn signals that it does.
From @Simon Player: as an alternate approach for Example #1 above:
I would be inclined to abstract all the ‘shared’ params to a superclass (or more than one if it makes sense due to conflicts or large number of params), and inherit that class where needed in all the places where is it referenced – then simply use {..#PARAMBBB}
This is easier to manage, more balanced, and the class compiler can take care of the dependencies, and is arguably cleaner than having a number of cross dependencies (assumes there are not too many, and no conflicts in param names).
Evgeny, if I understand you, you're saying that they downloaded the quotes to a CSV file and then they read in the CSV file. I'm now wondering if/how they "chunked" the quotes. Did they read in and store each quote one at a time, or did they read in 1000 quotes into a Java array and then store those quotes, read in another 1000 and store those, etc.
Great post! I have a followup question: How did you load the Finam data? Was it "over the wire" all at once? Or were you reading from one or more csv files?
It sounds like you want to do pattern matching, but for some reason you don't want to use ObjectScript pattern match syntax for your mask. So you've decided that you want to use * for "any number of any character" and ? for "a single character" which are pretty common.
Remember that ObjectScript also has the $match Regex function. So your match() method could use that syntax for the search mask and you wouldn't have to write any code to change * into .E and ? into 1E and you'd get the benefit of additional options offered by $match.
There is no Merge in the Native API. Maybe in a future release?
As Eduard said, use a custom resource. Now it depends on what you want to do:
Hope that's clear.
James, for this one, there is no easy answer. But first, here are some corrections FYI:
So it's this:
csession TEST -U %SYS '##class(Security.System).AutheEnabledGetStored("SYSTEM")'But the problem is that this expression doesn't output its value, and you can't include "write" at the beginning. You should probably describe exactly what you're trying to do in more detail, and someone here will make a suggestion.
Also note:
Brendan's comment from the other thread summarizes it nicely. Here's a little more...you have 2 good alternatives to parent-children:
To me, the answer is Yes. I guess using CompileAfter signals to another developer that the code doesn't have to be runnable at compile time, but DependsOn signals that it does.
From @Simon Player: as an alternate approach for Example #1 above:
I would be inclined to abstract all the ‘shared’ params to a superclass (or more than one if it makes sense due to conflicts or large number of params), and inherit that class where needed in all the places where is it referenced – then simply use {..#PARAMBBB}
This is easier to manage, more balanced, and the class compiler can take care of the dependencies, and is arguably cleaner than having a number of cross dependencies (assumes there are not too many, and no conflicts in param names).
Evgeny, if I understand you, you're saying that they downloaded the quotes to a CSV file and then they read in the CSV file. I'm now wondering if/how they "chunked" the quotes. Did they read in and store each quote one at a time, or did they read in 1000 quotes into a Java array and then store those quotes, read in another 1000 and store those, etc.
Great post! I have a followup question: How did you load the Finam data? Was it "over the wire" all at once? Or were you reading from one or more csv files?
It sounds like you want to do pattern matching, but for some reason you don't want to use ObjectScript pattern match syntax for your mask. So you've decided that you want to use * for "any number of any character" and ? for "a single character" which are pretty common.
Remember that ObjectScript also has the $match Regex function. So your match() method could use that syntax for the search mask and you wouldn't have to write any code to change * into .E and ? into 1E and you'd get the benefit of additional options offered by $match.