IT/Software career thread: Invert binary trees for dollars.

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,454
73,543
Yeah the XML part doesn't make sense. It's like he thinks, "Json is for web, xml is for server side". I'm not aware of a compelling reason to convert json to xml unless you're doing so for compatibility. I've never used it but I'm sure:
Json.NET - Newtonsoft

isn't worse than Visual Studio's piece of shit schema generation.
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,492
45,421
I'm with you except for the "Convert HTTP to JSON". Whatchutalkinbout willis?
I think he just means pass JSON requests as strings over the web service. The web service just has one method that takes a JSON string as input, and parses the JSON string to figure out which internal method to call.
 

Tenks

Bronze Knight of the Realm
14,163
606
Well JSON is far more lightweight than XML so you get immediate benefit of having to pass smaller requests over the wire.

Though I wouldn't recommend having a God servlet handing all requests with a single JSON point of entry. It sounds very much like the God Object anti pattern

God object - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
1,268
18
Oops yeah, should have worded it HTML >> JSON. Probably sending JSON strings over HTTP, rather than transforming some arbitrary string sent via HTTP into a JSON string. But yeah, the converting JSON into XML to talk to a database is the big WTF. I'd like to see a diagram of this system.
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,492
45,421
Well JSON is far more lightweight than XML so you get immediate benefit of having to pass smaller requests over the wire.

Though I wouldn't recommend having a God servlet handing all requests with a single JSON point of entry. It sounds very much like the God Object anti pattern

God object - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yea I would much rather just expose the actual interface to the web service, rather than have an extra layer of arbitrary JSON string interface.
 

Tenks

Bronze Knight of the Realm
14,163
606
With how easy it is to spin up a REST web server who handles the "Where shit goes" for you via the action I don't see why his boss would want a single point of entry with a JSON request. It seems to give zero value.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
The single point of entry json talks to one sp. That is the god object that main sp that takes xml. He is divorced from the server side code, but somehow wants to keep, the .net developer title. So in reality this design is an angular/sql application, 0.5 .net code.
 

ShakyJake

<Donor>
7,642
19,281
Having all your business logic as stored procedures sounds like insanity to me.

AngularJS -> ASP.NET Web API (or equivalent) -> SQL Server (or equivalent) is certainly a fine and fairly effortless way to go.
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,492
45,421
Lots of microsoft faggots in my experience loved to put shit into stored procedures that shouldn't be there.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Having all your business logic as stored procedures sounds like insanity to me.

AngularJS -> ASP.NET Web API (or equivalent) -> SQL Server (or equivalent) is certainly a fine and fairly effortless way to go.
I know right.. It's not like there are tons of examples, white papers, success stories with the web api architecture.
 

Khane

Got something right about marriage
19,851
13,364
Lots of microsoft faggots in my experience loved to put shit into stored procedures that shouldn't be there.
haha @ microsoft faggots.

I'd rather have people who put an excessive amount of logic in stored procedures than to deal with the "developers" in my group who are ancient and have no idea how to write set based queries. They literally write loops and then use DAO to run select queries, over and over. Nothing like turning set based queries into procedural calls.
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,492
45,421
haha @ microsoft faggots.

I'd rather have people who put an excessive amount of logic in stored procedures than to deal with the "developers" in my group who are ancient and have no idea how to write set based queries. They literally write loops and then use DAO to run select queries, over and over. Nothing like turning set based queries into procedural calls.
Yea I mean generally I'd say if you can get the database to do... database things then thats better. But typical stored procedure monkeys are putting plain old data processing or business logic in stored procedures. That have no change or version control.
 
1,268
18
Last two projects I worked on we did extensive stored procedures for common transactions. However, all DBs were created and populated via plain text .SQL scripts (exported from MySQL Workbench), so very easy for version control.

However, neither project was big data on 24/7 live DBs, which is a whole other ballgame. It was 5 minutes of version controlled scripts to configure, rebuild, and repopulate all DBs from scratch. Definitely not big data ...
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Modern day vs does have Database projects which effectively gives u source control for databases. Now for Kane's point doing a loop on code one do record at a time vs doing a loop on code on a multi set from the db, is debatable. For example, it is a lot easier to code a process that handles one record at a time and runs it thru a business process, than to run all the data at once en then run it through the process in chunks. Now the one row at a time will have severe issues if your data gets to be too big, or if you have a lot of access. So it is sort of the problem you experience only at high end enterprise level. And this problem can be solved with more db servers and distributed readings.

For most of the business processes, the information does not come from a single table. But instead from multiple tables/ views, etc. trying to load all the data you need at once may be not realistic since the amount is too much, so having unnecessary data on memory, that has to be passed around somehow by different objects is way more complex code wise, than load a single record at a time and process it. Passing huge chunks of data is memory in programming is not recommended.
For example consider the following process. Nightly your system must grab all orders entered that day, contact Google, based on the shipping address, determine the nearest by post office, contact ups and ship the order to the post office, and send the email to the client. Now it is semi simple to just load all open orders, then loop in code and for each loop, load the shipping address, contact Google, contact ups, load customer email and send email. Now imagine that one in set processing, it becomes more complex to load all the necessary components prior in memory.
 

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
I should add that for this big data project there are other tools to process your data. An oop language may not be the better one. Maybe Hadoop or map reduce.
 

Khane

Got something right about marriage
19,851
13,364
Yea I mean generally I'd say if you can get the database to do... database things then thats better. But typical stored procedure monkeys are putting plain old data processing or business logic in stored procedures. That have no change or version control.
You must have been out of the development game for a long time. Every single database object can be put into source control in Visual Studio and TFS these days. The entire database can be exported as a .dacpac and then you can even do all your DB development in VS and automatically deploy it to each database environment from there.

Hell you could always do this anyway, you just needed to be diligent since every single database object in most big databases can be saved as something like a .sql file.
 

Tenks

Bronze Knight of the Realm
14,163
606
Lots of microsoft faggots in my experience loved to put shit into stored procedures that shouldn't be there.
Probably because SQL Server and .NET have such tight integration that writing/calling a stored procedure is pretty trivial. I remember for my senior project in college every DML call had to be a stored procedure. I understand the purpose but it felt a bit heavy handed.
 

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,492
45,421
You must have been out of the development game for a long time. Every single database object can be put into source control in Visual Studio and TFS these days. The entire database can be exported as a .dacpac and then you can even do all your DB development in VS and automatically deploy it to each database environment from there.

Hell you could always do this anyway, you just needed to be diligent since every single database object in most big databases can be saved as something like a .sql file.
And never did anything in SQL Server or .net anyway. Always oracle.
 

Tenks

Bronze Knight of the Realm
14,163
606
I'm just glad I don't really have to deal with RDBMS anymore at my job. Once you work with a NOSQL going back to a RDBMS feels like stepping back in time. I understand each has their place but there is so much overhead, hassle and bullshit associated with RDBMS. Especially at an enterprise company where you have to go through 3 layers of DBAs to get a fucking table set up. Then they have to review your schema. Then your column definitions. Then your index definitions. Then three weeks later you have your table.