- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Other Series
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Tee-hee
Admin
Admin
Admin
Admin
What it means when you say literally
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally
Data Structures 101. Ha we call it CS300 something. There is no nice intro it just sucks.
If you really want to see a fun data structure look at Fat16... Which is backward compatible with Fat12 and all other fats that came before.
Admin
Admin
I would be willing to be overrun by evil bunnies as long as I never had to make another change to the 2GB+ XML files at my work. What are these files used for? One service pulls a bunch of data from out database to create the "input" and transfers it (via TCP/IP on the same machine) to the next service. This service does some analysis, generates the "output", and passes the XML to the final service. The final service pulls all of the data out of XML and inserts the "output" in to the original database.
Admin
It's just that literally now has two meanings: it's former meaning, and the antonym of that.
I don't see the problem.
Admin
Are there even any non-evil bunnies?
Admin
I would crack up if it wasn't tragic. I read this article a couple days ago, and today when I started supporting a new application, realized that all the XML requests they have use pretty much the same thing:
<q0:fileInfo xmlns:dt="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:datatypes" dt:dt="bin.base64">
Admin
Actually XML is eXtensible... A very definition of it! If you know your structures are likely to change in the future (Or just have that gut feeling that this could be done differently and probably will) Just use namespaces...
Voila, you now have a container document that can include various internals with different namespace (Use the "any") and your validators and XLSTs and any other std. tool will work brilliantly and you can define new namespaces as you please...
Combined with a versioning approach you can call it "my.company.account:0" and the next account:1 etc... That way you can even provide backwards compatibility without much effort, simply leave in an old xml to object lib and provide for convertion to new structure and save the new :)
Admin
Admin
Admin
Is the real wtf that you can still decode the base64 encoded xml and the blacked out portions don't matter?
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <record> <dbKey>9035768</dbKey> <borrower1> <first>Jennifer</first> <last>Garner</last> 4829 Oakview Lane <city>Perryview</city> <state>WA</state> <ssn>209-23-6874</ssn> </borrower1> </record>Admin
Finally, someone with half a brain.
OK, maybe a third...
Admin
Don't be stupid. Of course data structures can change, and they sometimes do. They just have more dependencies that must changed accordingly, and sometimes that makes changing them impractical but that's a far cry from never.