Web Service WTF
-
So I for one can fully understand Blakey's ranting and I would have cut him some slack
You must be new here.
-
Wouldn't a competent C# programmer be able to learn Java relatively quickly?
The language? Yes. The libraries? Probably not; each ecosystem is now pretty large and they're not nearly as close as the languages are.
-
So I for one
Nobody who truly understands me would ever say "I for one". What the fuck is that? Do you normally post as a hivemind of 36 different people, and you put that in there to indicate the rest of the aliens are asleep? Are you trying to create this huge hypothetical audience that disagrees with you, then trying to set yourself aside from it?
I for one!
-
All I know is the code was supposed to do the same thing if any of the bits were found to be set.
Then I'm having trouble understanding what your ROL loop was for.
if (flags & (this_bit|that_bit|the_other_bit)) { return stuff; }
or if you want to test every bit that could conceivably be set in flags, just test the entire thing for non-zero-ness:
if (flags) {
return stuff;
}What was the ROL loop intended to achieve?
-
JBert said:
So I for oneNobody who truly understands me would ever say "I for one". What the fuck is that?
Think of it as a contracted form of "I, for one example" (which is better stated as "I, for instance"). Or, a first-person existential qualifier, if that is how you prefer to think of it.
-
If the people who used that phrase actually thought about it, they might agree with you.
But I think it's much more likely that it's some kind of textual diarrhea they picked up from someplace (it's endemic on Slashdot, for example), and it just plops out onto the page.
-
But I think it's much more likely that it's some kind of textual diarrhea they picked up from someplace (it's endemic on Slashdot, for example), and it just plops out onto the page.
For all intensive purposes, you're probably correct.
-
@tarunik said:
Right in one guess; I must have picked it up from Slashdot, that whorific site.Think of it as a contracted form of "I, for one example" (which is better stated as "I, for instance"). Or, a first-person existential qualifier, if that is how you prefer to think of it.
But I think it's much more likely that it's some kind of textual diarrhea they picked up from someplace (it's endemic on Slashdot, for example), and it just plops out onto the page.
You must be new here.
Oh, only the "everything you postcan andwill be used against you" thing will be hard to get used to.
-
just test the entire thing for non-zero-ness:
That's what my friend did!
Remember, I only had one class in C programming & little experience. I mechanically shortened the 2-page source code to 4 lines with the ROL loop. He checked to see if the variable was non-zero and executed accordingly, hence his (yours) was even shorter (and more to the point).
In effect, I reduced the WTFyness by >90%, you and he eliminated it altogether.
-
-
<a href="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-insect-overlords">folk entomology</a>
That is the source for "I, for one, welcome our new X overlords," but "I, for one, ..." itself predates that by decades, if not centuries.
-
That is the source for "I, for one, welcome our new X overlords," but "I, for one, ..." itself predates that by decades, if not centuries.
Slashdot has been around a long time!
-
Nobody who truly understands me would ever say "I for one".
I, personally, would just to annoy you.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Nobody who truly understands me would ever say "I for one".
I, personally, would just to annoy you.Actually, you forgot the "for one" part.
-
Actually, you forgot the "for one" part.
I for one, second this tertiary approach to trolling blakey.
"1 2 3"
teehee
-
I for one, second this tertiary approach to trolling blakey.
Approved. Go forth, my friend!
Filed under: Punishment for this is already being self-inflicted
-
-
FTFY
I hoped that it won't be necessary to point that tidbit out to the audiences here, so I went with the proper spelling and allowed for inference of my intention.
Was I wrong?
-
-
I hoped that it won't be necessary to point that tidbit out to the audiences here, so I went with the proper spelling and allowed for inference of my intention.
Was I wrong?
If you'd done a chubertdev and hidden the 'u' with a tiny font, you would have covered yourself against any confusion. You would also have successfully trolled me.
-
-
@Zecc said:
I figured the "I, personally," would be just as much, if not more, annoying.I, personally, would just to annoy you.
Actually, you forgot the "for one" part.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Zecc said:
@blakeyrat said:
Nobody who truly understands me would ever say "I for one".
I, personally, would just to annoy you.Actually, you forgot the "for one" part.
I figured the "I, personally," would be just as much, if not more, annoying.Actually, I, for one applaud you for not dumbing down your scientific trolling.
-
I assumed you were referring to having to program in forth as the self-inflicted punishment and that @Keith missed the joke.
-
I assumed you were referring to having to program in forth as the self-inflicted punishment and that @Keith missed the joke.
I think a joke has gone awry when it causes this much confusion for so many people.
-
I think a joke has gone awry when it causes this much confusion for so many people.
I think a joke is awesome when it can have so many ways of being funny.
-
@antiquarian's explanation is something I didn't even originally consider, but now I will pretend that it was my sixth sense seeing into the future and picking the spelling with that intention.
-
If you'd done a chubertdev and hidden the 'u' with a tiny font, you would have covered yourself against any confusion. You would also have successfully trolled me.
Only my wife gets to do a chubertdev.
-
-
-
I hate you. :)
-
All right, dragging this back OT with an update:
So the other company's offshore team made some changes to their
genericResponse
structure. It is now significantly different from thegenericRequest
in the OP:<genericResponse> <customerid>SOME GUID</customerid> <userid>SOME GUID</userid> <locationid>SOME GUID</locationid> <attributeResponse> <attributes> <attributeDetail> <attributeName>SOME NAME1</attributeName> <attributeValue>SOME VALUE1</attributeValue> <attributeDetail> <attributeDetail> <attributeName>SOME NAME2</attributeName> <attributeValue>SOME VALUE2</attributeValue> <attributeDetail> </attributes> <attributes> <attributeDetail> <attributeName>SOME NAME3</attributeName> <attributeValue>SOME VALUE3</attributeValue> <attributeDetail> </attributes> </attributeResponse> <attributeResponse> <attributes> <attributeDetail> <attributeName>SOME NAME4</attributeName> <attributeValue>SOME VALUE4</attributeValue> <attributeDetail> </attributes> <attributes> <attributeDetail> <attributeName>SOME NAME5</attributeName> <attributeValue>SOME VALUE5</attributeValue> <attributeDetail> <attributeDetail> <attributeName>SOME NAME6</attributeName> <attributeValue>SOME VALUE6</attributeValue> <attributeDetail> </attributes> </attributeResponse> </genericResponse>
Now, because this response is used in about 2 dozen service methods, all of those service methods are broken and we have to re-write huge chunks of code on our side. Not only that, but when they made the change, they introduced a structural bug that means we can't even process the WSDL file for the service.
-
Here's a different web service WTF I ran into yesterday:
- call operation "getAllScheduledReportHistory" as defined in the WSDL, and as instructed by vendor support
- get back a fault response saying "No such operation 'getAllScheduledReportHistory'"
OK then...
-
All right, dragging this back OT with an update:
So the other company's offshore team made some changes to their
genericResponse
structure. It is now significantly different from thegenericRequest
in the OP:<genericResponse> <customerid>SOME GUID</customerid> <userid>SOME GUID</userid> <locationid>SOME GUID</locationid> <attributeResponse> <attributes> ... </attributes> <attributes> ... </attributes> </attributeResponse> <attributeResponse> <attributes> .... </attributes> <attributes> ... </attributes> </attributeResponse> </genericResponse> ```</blockquote> I wonder why they would suddenly be repeating the `attributeResponse` and `attributeDetails` elements. Do they somehow compose this response based on the results of some other of their webservice calls? It looks as if they **really** don't want to merge those attributes into one big list... --- Filed under: <a>There are lazy programmers and lazy programmers.</a>
-
They're trying to mimic tables and rows. with this structure. So each
attributeResponse
is a "table", eachattributes
is a "row", and eachattributeDetail
is a "field".
-
They're trying to mimic tables and rows. with this structure. So each
attributeResponse
is a "table", eachattributes
is a "row", and eachattributeDetail
is a "field".Well then. The obvious question now is: can you
JOIN
them?
-
With a suitable script and an XML parser, sure, why not?
-
why not?
Oh, sure, it's not a big deal. Unless you think this is an inappropriate way to greet your boss the next morning:
-
They're trying to mimic tables and rows. with this structure. So each
attributeResponse
is a "table", eachattributes
is a "row", and eachattributeDetail
is a "field".
With an inconsistent number of fields for each row and table??? For real???Good luck
JOIN
ing them.
Filed under: TDEMSYR(s)
-
Well then. The obvious question now is: can you
JOIN
them?Yes, they are providing sufficient information that they could be joined. If the damn services weren't broken.
-
With an inconsistent number of fields for each row and table??? For real???
Good luck
JOIN
ing them.
Filed under: <a>TDEMSYR(s)</a>
Yes, this is the shit I am dealing with. Once again. the company producing this is outsourcing the work to India, so it's cheap, imported shit.
-
Oh, sure, it's not a big deal. Unless you think this is an inappropriate way to greet your boss the next morning:
What? Smiling and eager looking?
-
What? Smiling and eager looking?
I always look eager when carrying an axe as well, yes.
-
Our experience with off-shoring to India has been very positive.
I had this wonderful meeting a couple weeks ago where someone said that some of our offshore programmers keep ignoring our coding conventions. I kept wondering why we didn't reject the code. I guess that's TRWTF.
-
Reading that, I'm a little surprised that they didn't decide to just write it all in Turtle (one of the many RDF serialization formats). Like that, they'd have at least as much power and generic-ness as they have now, but with the added bonus that there's far fewer standard libraries for working with it. They could also do something nasty with URLs in the process to make it all absolutely incomprehensible too.
And when people complain, they could just switch back to the XML rendering of RDF. It's XML! It's generic! It's a true standard! It's fucking awful!
-
Another update:
We just got the other company to add a few new services that we needed for the project. When they finished the update, they sent us the updated documentation. According to the documentation, the
genericRequest
structure was changed to look like the most recent version of thegenericResponse
structure. Well, all of our integration to this point is broken, but this was expected. So we pull down the updated WSDL and get ready to start updating all of our integration points. But wait! ThegenericRequest
structure didn't change! Instead, they added a newgenericRequestWithList
structure, which is probably a good thing.So they actually did something right. But instead of just adding the new stuff to the documentation, they "updated" all the existing documentation so that it is no longer correct.
I really hate this project.