So what happens if the insert to the first table fails? His supposed application layer needs to be finely grained enough to deal with each.
I mean, if I sent
INSERT INTO tA (f1,f2,f3) VALUES (1,2,3)
INSERT INTO tB (f0, t2) VALUES (@@Indentity, Now())
and the first insert fails, I insert an orphan into tB? BAD. WRONG. There NEEDS to be round-trips if you're going to accurately reproduce trigger behaviour. Can I batch inserts? Sure. But we're talking about reproducing or replacing the behaviour of triggers.
If you really believe coding triggers in the application "layer" (Should be in the data access layer if you were coding real enterprise apps) is the same logic, you really should have your head examined.
Consider your BEST CASE scenario:
Client (webserver) opens connection to database. Client inserts into tA Client receives identity response Client inserts related into tB Client closes connection
Now consider my best case:
Client opens connection to database. Client inserts into tA client closes connection.
A -drastically- smaller amount of network communication, and milliseconds faster because less discussion is going on between the client and server.
Don't even get me started on transactions, either.
"However, I stick everything into the application layer "
-->lol! Why use the word 'layer' then? I love you PHP/MySQL "professional" developer types.
No wonder your queries are so fast... but your application 'layer' is far slower than it needs to be. You're opening more connections to the DB per transaction, and doing work on the webserver that the database "layer" is much more efficient at dealing with.
Your individual single query may be fast, but I guarantee you my tiered application over SQLServer is much, much more scalable and much much faster under load.
This isn't necessarily true either.
The HTML browser is part of the GUI.
NOT the OS.
Frankly, if anything is 'insecure' it's the activeX/COM+ API from the OS that IE -uses-. IE just provides a place for js to execute AX controls that aren't local.
It's the ActiveX API that exposes your machine to malicious code. Bugs in various AX controls, and users allowing insecure controls to be installed, are the problem here. If/when MS rips out AX support for their next big thing (which they will do in a heartbeat when firefox reaches 40% marketshare due to security) these problems will be moot.
Because the more correct response is that the OS is tied to -it-.
Most of the folder views and such in windows are HTML/CSS windows.
Pulling an html rendering engine out of windows would mean MS would have to re-think a lot of their UI.
They barely had the time and finances to go over THE PHYSICAL LEAKS (by that I mean real water & flooding) with a fine tooth comb... you really think they paid for top IT security? They close that tunnel regularly because pieces are falling off, I'd bet the code is unchecked spaghetti too; and that bet goes up when you mention to me that the company is insisting it's proprietary.
Besides, while the project is in development you may have lots of eyes... but someone with a home EEPROM'er and all the controller source code could have a field day. Get a good hard hat and a van, and it's off into the manholes of the financial district you go. It's speculation, sure... but I don't see why proprietary for a system like this is such a bad or obnoxious concept.
And to think I dumped all my mod points earlier today, because you'd have gotten all five for being just about the only one in this thread with a clue...
If you open source things like traffic pattern control, you greatly open the possibilities of knowlegeable hackers. If the spec is all over the internet, what's stopping a little social engineering from making my commute into a four hour nightmare?
I would have agreed with you, until I RTFA, and TFA actually not only mentions that we're going to Hell in this movie, but can DESCRIBE IT like it's not a metaphor.
Think Jar-jar was bad? Just wait until we hear the heavy metal playing in Hell a la Spawn.
No, it's not reverse engineering at all, but/. will still mod them +5 'insightful' because if you call it 'reverse engineering' it's "hacking microsoft", instead of the truth, which is that MS tried to produce a product that can be much more accessible to even the open source movement.
Slashdot Mirror
No, see, he had the spec wrong. He asked for COFEE (sic), not coffee.
So what happens if the insert to the first table fails? His supposed application layer needs to be finely grained enough to deal with each. I mean, if I sent INSERT INTO tA (f1,f2,f3) VALUES (1,2,3) INSERT INTO tB (f0, t2) VALUES (@@Indentity, Now()) and the first insert fails, I insert an orphan into tB? BAD. WRONG. There NEEDS to be round-trips if you're going to accurately reproduce trigger behaviour. Can I batch inserts? Sure. But we're talking about reproducing or replacing the behaviour of triggers.
Unibroue (unibroue.com) makes better beer than any American company. Vastly.
Some CTO you got there, only checking selects. Companies that do -business- actually -insert- orders.
If you really believe coding triggers in the application "layer" (Should be in the data access layer if you were coding real enterprise apps) is the same logic, you really should have your head examined.
Consider your BEST CASE scenario:
Client (webserver) opens connection to database.
Client inserts into tA
Client receives identity response
Client inserts related into tB
Client closes connection
Now consider my best case:
Client opens connection to database.
Client inserts into tA
client closes connection.
A -drastically- smaller amount of network communication, and milliseconds faster because less discussion is going on between the client and server.
Don't even get me started on transactions, either.
"However, I stick everything into the application layer " -->lol! Why use the word 'layer' then? I love you PHP/MySQL "professional" developer types. No wonder your queries are so fast... but your application 'layer' is far slower than it needs to be. You're opening more connections to the DB per transaction, and doing work on the webserver that the database "layer" is much more efficient at dealing with. Your individual single query may be fast, but I guarantee you my tiered application over SQLServer is much, much more scalable and much much faster under load.
eff that, it's bone marrow. You don't bbq that, it's STEW MAKIN' TIME, YEEHAW!
This isn't necessarily true either. The HTML browser is part of the GUI. NOT the OS. Frankly, if anything is 'insecure' it's the activeX/COM+ API from the OS that IE -uses-. IE just provides a place for js to execute AX controls that aren't local. It's the ActiveX API that exposes your machine to malicious code. Bugs in various AX controls, and users allowing insecure controls to be installed, are the problem here. If/when MS rips out AX support for their next big thing (which they will do in a heartbeat when firefox reaches 40% marketshare due to security) these problems will be moot.
Because the more correct response is that the OS is tied to -it-. Most of the folder views and such in windows are HTML/CSS windows. Pulling an html rendering engine out of windows would mean MS would have to re-think a lot of their UI.
That's not a moon!
$100?
Shouldn't this just be a driver update that smooths out input?
FOSS guys, get on it!
They barely had the time and finances to go over THE PHYSICAL LEAKS (by that I mean real water & flooding) with a fine tooth comb... you really think they paid for top IT security? They close that tunnel regularly because pieces are falling off, I'd bet the code is unchecked spaghetti too; and that bet goes up when you mention to me that the company is insisting it's proprietary. Besides, while the project is in development you may have lots of eyes... but someone with a home EEPROM'er and all the controller source code could have a field day. Get a good hard hat and a van, and it's off into the manholes of the financial district you go. It's speculation, sure... but I don't see why proprietary for a system like this is such a bad or obnoxious concept.
And to think I dumped all my mod points earlier today, because you'd have gotten all five for being just about the only one in this thread with a clue...
If you open source things like traffic pattern control, you greatly open the possibilities of knowlegeable hackers. If the spec is all over the internet, what's stopping a little social engineering from making my commute into a four hour nightmare?
Well, the author also didn't seem to think this could be used to repair a linux or osx computer.
...it's formulaic /. article v1.2b
So let's do the math:
Plug Apple and iPod (+3, cool)
Dig on Microsoft (+3, slashdot article requirement)
Seemingly "new" tech (+2, informative)
Come on... I see a lot of pussies and a ton of boobs in IT. ... and I'm just talking about the men.
Airplane was in 1980... Hell, Barbarella got a PG rating in the 70s, and there's full frontal in that ...
I would have agreed with you, until I RTFA, and TFA actually not only mentions that we're going to Hell in this movie, but can DESCRIBE IT like it's not a metaphor.
Think Jar-jar was bad? Just wait until we hear the heavy metal playing in Hell a la Spawn.
Seriously. Anyone with any ability to edit outgoing packets will be cloaked before most of slashdot is done reading TFA.
On Demand for several cable companies has reruns of most of the shows on premium cable...
Sorry, but HOME and END are from typewriter days, and have squat to do with a screen. Home = beginning of line, end = end of line.
Try six months of programming in .net, and then try to tell me that MS was wrong with it.
It's seriously hot stuff.
No, it's not reverse engineering at all, but /. will still mod them +5 'insightful' because if you call it 'reverse engineering' it's "hacking microsoft", instead of the truth, which is that MS tried to produce a product that can be much more accessible to even the open source movement.
Just think, you may not catch AIDS from shaking hands, but now you can catch SOBIG from it!
Yeah, because there's other search engines out there, right? Google has about the same market share on search that MS has on OS's.