@immibis said:
The backlash is probably generating more publicity than the spam.
Well, the backlash costs (nearly) nothing and it gets the word out. One could wonder if this was the plan from the start.
@immibis said:
The backlash is probably generating more publicity than the spam.
Well, the backlash costs (nearly) nothing and it gets the word out. One could wonder if this was the plan from the start.
@aihtdikh said:
What am I missing?
Ubersoldat quoted only the most uninteresting part, you have to open https://github.com/jloughry/BANCStar/blob/master/README.md to really know what this is about.
So the OP is TRWTF.
So even Google is smart enough not to talk to a Go server...
@enfiskutensykkel said:
Well, I just skimmed through the thread, so somebody else might have pointed it out, but I would prefer
int a[ ] = {some array of numbers}
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (a[i] == some element I'm searching for )
break;
}
if (i < n) {
do_stuff();
}over
int found = false;
for (i = 0; !found && i < n; ++i) {
if (a[i] == some element I'm searching for )
found = true;
}
if (found) {
do_stuff();
}but that might just be me.
I would still us an exit condition in a while:
int a[ ] = {some array of numbers}
int i = 0;
while (i < n && a[i] != element we're looking for) {
i++;
}
if (i < n) {
do_stuff();
}
This is a trivial example of course...
@immibis said:
The backlash is probably generating more publicity than the spam.
Well, the backlash costs (nearly) nothing and it gets the word out. One could wonder if this was the plan from the start.
I guess in this case it doubles for an "is string empty" check?
Again, the WTF is likely not the hashCode() implementation. What I think that happend is that they wrote some piece of code like this:
cache.put(customer.hashCode(), customer);
instead of
cache.put(customer.getId(), customer);
The same problem would exist if they used an indexable array, then searched that array based on the output of hashCode().
Now where's the OP when you need him?
EDIT: Did we get trolled?
@henke37 said:
Looks like an implementation error in the hashmap, a correct one works even if the hash function returns the same value for ever single element.
The OP actually didn't say that, but he could have been clearer:
@Severity One said:
Both classes have a unique identifier (a customer ID and the IMSI, respectively), but instead hashCode() is used to index them in a Hashtable (obviously not a Map).
The way I read it (after reading that line thrice), they are using a hashCode() as a key in the map / hashtable / whatever. So no duplicates, because every hash collision gets an element thrown out...
This reminds me that I bookmarked an interesting article by Bobby Woolf (one of the two authors who coined (most of) the terms in the field of Enterprise Integration), which he wrote while working for IBM:
[url=http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-soa-esbarch/]ESB-oriented architecture: The wrong approach to adopting SOA[/url]
It's title and content seems to have gotten the managers so riled up that they felt the need to add an Editor's note and sidebar to explain that you shouldn't jump into this without thinking, and yes, you still need to give them the money. And there's even more sales goodness after the break.
@skotl said:
@blakeyrat said:Ehr, ESB is a really fuzzy / misused term, just like SOA or cloud-computing is but your example would only fit the most narrow definition. In most cases, WebSphere MQ is just the message broker middleware as ESB software is expected to understand multiple message formats, take for example [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_WebSphere_ESB[/url] (discontinued) or [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_WebSphere_Message_Broker[/url] (examples abound, especially from IBM - they're in the Enterprisey Software Business afterall).@morbiuswilters said:@Ben L. said:WHAT THE FUCK DOES SOA STAND FOR?I figured ESB, and especially SOA, were pretty well-known acronyms.
Among people who work with Oracle and Java bullshit maybe. I've never heard ESB in my career.
I hate to agree with Ben L, but if you're willing to spent hundreds of words communicating with people maybe actually ensure they know what the fuck you're talking about at some point. Snoofle's usually pretty good about this, not sure what went wrong here.
I come across ESB relativley often but then one of our dev teams specifically writes integrations for third parties, some of whom (a tiny minority) use an ESB
If you've heard of / come across WebSphere MQ, RabbitMQ or even Biztalk, then these are ESBs
Having said all of that, it was "The Next Big Thing" in the mid noughties but rightly died a death for the reasons mentioned by snoofle and Ronald - that it becomes unmanageable and ultra-expensive trying to connect everything to everything