Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76 77 ... Last
[#] Sat Feb 12 2011 09:38:48 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Heh. Look on the bright side, LS: the EBCDIC dinosaur is at least at the point where some people have to look it up. :)

[#] Sat Feb 12 2011 21:04:42 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


heh.

In other news... fucking bittorrent. It's apparently pretty hard to block these days. OpenWRT has some capabilities, but not enough. :-(

(Normally, I wouldn't care, but there are some people in our share house who haven't gotten the message that if they keep leeching, we're going to lose our internet access.)

Sandvine has the right idea, but is priced out of reach.

[#] Sat Feb 12 2011 23:09:51 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

ROPE doesn't work anymore? I'm guessing the bittorrent client developers have worked as hard as they can to make the initial handshake look as much as possible like an ordinary HTTP request.

If you have the privilege of being the BOFH firewall admin, perhaps it's time to capture all port 80 traffic and send it to a nazi-proxy.

[#] Wed Feb 16 2011 14:50:59 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

EBCDIC.

That's funny.
Although just yesterday I found out about a project we're having trouble testing because our old vax which this project has to interface with can only accept 3 letter codes to denote a client whereas all our new clients use 4 letter codes and all the new software doesn't care what lengths the client IDs are but the vax can only handle 3 character ids.

[#] Wed Feb 16 2011 14:53:21 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

as more and more of the traffic on the web becomes download on demand, bittorrent is going to be the protocol of choice, so yallz better get used to it.

[#] Wed Feb 16 2011 14:52:37 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Heh. Look on the bright side, LS: the EBCDIC dinosaur is at least at


How much of the ASCII table can you fill from memory? 256 points for getting it all right.
Now... how much of the ebcdic table can you fill from memory?

[#] Tue Mar 01 2011 11:12:27 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

oh, and wrap everything into a mime structure.



[#] Wed Mar 02 2011 22:55:34 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

But don't you see? xml is just plain broken by design.
(pardon me if I'm still fucking furious at google docs)
<xml>
<tag1>
content 1
<tag2>
content 2
</tag2>
more content 1
</tag1>
</xml>

Look at content 1 and more content 1.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT. How the hell do you parse that into anything meaningful?

[#] Mon Feb 21 2011 15:40:17 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm kinda wondering why google hasn't done this yet. Maybe that was the plan for google desktop but it never got enough traction to be useful.

[#] Tue Mar 01 2011 21:25:03 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Referencing opaque binary data via a URI is an interesting approach,

but what do you do when your document absolutely needs to be
self-contained? I ended up using Base 64, but that still seemed like a

less than optimal solution.

There's mime for that. Mime sucks too, but nowhere near as bad as xml for what it's trying to do.

[#] Wed Mar 02 2011 15:05:02 EST from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Re: WSDL and web services.

There's one thing (well, maybe more than one thing, but I'll start with one) that I'm not sure I get about WSDL and web services, and this might also apply to CORBA's IDL as well.

What's the real point?

What does a formal XML-based description of your APIs really buy you? If you develop a library, for example, for converting pictures of marshmallows into pictures of toasted marshmallows, you would expect that someone looking for such a service would develop their application towards your API. In other words, they're going to write their application assuming that certain operations, like foo, bar, and baz, are going to be present. Given that, the one advantage I can see to something like WSDL or an IDL is that it tells you what data types are being used, so your application can convert to the proper types, if needed.

To take this a step further, let's say that you're going to provide a service that already has a standardized API. That means the operations your service provides, and the parameters they accept and generate are pretty much already defined. Any application written for that standard API is going to expect those operations to exist, so the service will be written towards that. Another place where something like WSDL could be useful is in cases where portions of the API or API parameters are optional. A WSDL document could then let the application know what features are supported.

Is that what it's all about? Automatic identification and conversion of data types, and the ability to assess a service's feature set? Or is there supposed to be more to WSDL than that?
DL Binder

[#] Thu Mar 03 2011 12:48:55 EST from Nite*Star @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Feb 21 2011 3:40pm from Ford II @uncnsrd
I'm kinda wondering why google hasn't done this yet. Maybe that was

the plan for google desktop but it never got enough traction to be
useful.

Google is (quietly) beta-testing the new Google OS by giving away cloud-based netbooks to qualified testers ....

[#] Tue Mar 01 2011 21:25:43 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Anyway, if you control both ends of the link you can just send
whatever tags you want and ignore the need for any formal
specification, but I realize that's a *very* loose and casual way of
handling things.

Except that nowadays, you probably have to be able to jam your protocol through an http proxy.

[#] Tue Mar 01 2011 16:29:40 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Isn't it cool that the word "schema" shares a lot of characters with the word "schmeep" ?

Anyway, if you control both ends of the link you can just send whatever tags you want and ignore the need for any formal specification, but I realize that's a *very* loose and casual way of handling things.

When XML first showed up on the scene it was painted as this sort of magic fairy dust that would make every program automatically know how to parse any data format without any work whatsoever!

[#] Thu Mar 03 2011 14:45:16 EST from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

bart: Re: What is WSDL good for?

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that extensibility is one of the prime advantages of WSDL and SOAP. That definitely would be a good advantage.
It's been a while since I've done coding in a compiled language like C, but I definitely do remember the issues involved in changing the contents of a library file that programs depended on. Even if it was just adding new function calls, there was still a risk that the change would break the existing programs.
libBinder

[#] Tue Mar 01 2011 14:55:57 EST from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

bart: I'm a little confused when you say that we have WSDL due to DTD's shortcomings.
From what I understand, WSDL is used for specifying web APIs (essentially), whereas a DTD is designed as a validation tool for any XML document.

Were you perhaps thinking about XML schemas, which WSDL uses to describe API messages? If so, I can definitely agree with you. From what I've read, XML schemas definitely have much more flexibility than a DTD, and they can be used in place of a DTD for validation purposes.
Schema Binder

[#] Thu Mar 03 2011 02:19:16 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

hm, thats html, not xml. I don't think its legal in xml.



[#] Wed Mar 02 2011 14:52:16 EST from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ford: I definitely have not drunk the XML Kool-Aid(TM).

I can see it's advantages over HTML, and there are a number of places where XML is definitely a better choice than some alternatives, but, like everything else, it's just one of many tools. If it's not the right tool, then I won't use it.

For example, I was considering using XML for a project here at work to describe details of the various hardware platforms we have to test. However, after some thinking about how this information will be generated and used, I'm leaning more towards a domain-specific language (DSL) for the task. I don't know yet if I can find an existing language that meets our needs (that would be great) or if I'll have to develop one. However, I don't think XML will be the right choice; the users who will have to generate the data may not be very familiar with XML, though there is a structure to the data, it's not as clear-cut as XML would like it to be (nor would it fit very well in relational database, maybe an object database, but the datasaet is way too small to require a DBMS), and it would be a lot of effort to develop a custom tool with a nice front-end UI so the users wouldn't have to muck with the XML.
DSL Binder

[#] Mon Feb 28 2011 17:13:44 EST from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I can see some advantages to XML as well. Not only can you grab an off-the-shelf parser to check for well-formedness, but, if you spend the time to develop thorough document type definitions (DTDs) for everything you want to represent, the parser can also validate data for you. Then you can not only catch simple encoding or tag errors, but you can catch structural errors as well.

Despite that, though, I'm still with Ford and bart in that any large chunk of opaque binary data should be kept well away from XML. Make a tag that lets you reference that object via a URI instead of trying to include it in the document. Then it becomes the application's job to fetch it instead of the parser, and the application can more likely than not make smarter decisions about what to do.
XML Binder

[#] Wed Mar 02 2011 07:32:13 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

spell, I was just a little trolling.

WSDLs are just sort of CORBA-IDL expressed in XML. and, of course WSDL is just a bunch of DTDs.

btw, I like what you can do with SOAP-UI.



Go to page: First ... 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76 77 ... Last