Real cowboys don't enforce anything



  • Response from third party with whom we are setting up a data connection for our application: "Yeah, we don't want to use an XSD because we might lose some flexibility."

    Good start!



  • Ah, sounds like possible supporters of the EAV database design. You know, so you don't have to change the database when your code is altered.



  • @dhromed said:

    "Yeah, we don't want to use an XSD because we might lose some flexibility."

    ...which is precisely, of course, the whole point.



  • @dhromed said:

    Response from third party with whom we are setting up a data connection for our application: "Yeah, we don't want to use an XSD because we might lose some flexibility."

    Good start!

    They probably meant: we don't know how to make one, but didn't dare to say so. So they just said the first thing that came from the top of their mind (not uncommon in Dutchlanders).

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @TGV said:

    They probably meant: we don't know how to make one, but didn't dare to say so.
    Not necessarily. They might be some of those misguided fools who think that defining the schemas is a terrible insult to their potential future creativity.



  • @dkf said:

    @TGV said:
    They probably meant: we don't know how to make one, but didn't dare to say so.
    Not necessarily. They might be some of those misguided fools who think that defining the schemas is a terrible insult to their potential future creativity.

    The whole thing kind of smells like they don't realize that it's customary to have a data layer in your code, so you can change your schemas (schemae?) without changing your interface to other people's code (such as the API dhromed's supposed to be talking to).



  • @toon said:

    schemas (schemae?)

    For pedantic dickweeds, the etymologically-correct plural is schemata.



  • @arotenbe said:

    @toon said:
    schemas (schemae?)

    For pedantic dickweeds, the etymologically-correct plural is schemata.

    I always thought it was 'schemings'.



  • @arotenbe said:

    For pedantic dickweeds, the etymologically-correct plural is schemata.

    Sounds like a word out of a Dan Brown book title!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @toon said:

    @arotenbe said:
    For pedantic dickweeds, the etymologically-correct plural is schemata.

    Sounds like a word out of a Dan Brown book title!
    Or Dan Savage's next neologistic experiment.



  • @toon said:

    @arotenbe said:
    For pedantic dickweeds, the etymologically-correct plural is schemata.

    Sounds like a word out of a Dan Brown book title!

    Here is a review of Schemata by Dan Brown, based on this truly awesome one*.

    @Livia said:

    This time Robert Langdon wakes up in hospital with amnesia, meets a beautiful woman-with-whom-he-does-not-get-involved, immediately witnesses a murder, and goes on the run with her to escape from people trying to kill him while he pursues the symbolism in Schemata to save the world from a deadly standard created by a madman. The reader is treated to the same "lectures about things the world has not understood" -- this time about Schemas, XSDs, ORMs, and validation. Brown's writing style is sloppy, and (remarkably) Robert Langdon remains under-developed and again appears as a "I have no life or personality" character who is marginally affected by the remarkable situations and events in the plot.

    * if you did notice that the ASIN code for this book starts with BOOB you are a perv.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.