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:
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).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!
-
@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!
-
@toon said:
@arotenbe said:
Or Dan Savage's next neologistic experiment.For pedantic dickweeds, the etymologically-correct plural is schemata.
Sounds like a word out of a Dan Brown book title!
-
@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.