RE: was a tricky situation
I used to work for a healthcare e-Learning firm. We had a CF polling application that was built-in to a Web conferencing system. The polling application would present all the users in the Web conference with an HTML form and allow them to answer a series of questions. Their answers were submitted to a database and when all users had answered, the conference proctor would show the results. The results were a cfgraph Flash chart. The guy that wrote the polling app had some seriously crazy code happening when the user submitted answers.. things like inserting values to several tables _before_ the actually results could be inserted - due to FK relationships. The application would crash whenever more than 30 users were being polled. I calculated how many queries were run each time a user submitted one answer. There were 11. I came around, completely overhauled the system and for the answer submit stuff I wound up seeding the database with null answer values. This allowed me to write ONLY ONE query on the answer submit page. We ran the app through LoadRunner both before my changes and after. Simulatenous user load increased from 30 to 300 - the maximum we could test due to our LoadRunner license. Also of note, is that we ran the test with "human thinking" turned off and with LoadRunner slamming the form action page (answer submittal) with 300 users at the same time. The entire Web team was astonished at the results. This was with CF 5 with SQL 7. Just goes to show, that there is a right way and a wrong way to write code. | Aaron West | aaron AT trajiklyhip.com | http://www.trajiklyhip.com | Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion | Certified Macromedia Flash MX Developer [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: was a tricky situation
Just goes to show, that there is a right way and a wrong way to write code I would modify that slightly, making it more correct but probably with less impact: "...there are many right ways, and even more wrong ways to write code..." Ian Confidentiality Notice: This message including any attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete any copies of this message. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: was a tricky situation
I used to work for a healthcare e-Learning firm. We had a CF polling application that was built-in to a Web conferencing system. The polling application would present all the users in the Web conference with an HTML form and allow them to answer a series of questions. Their answers were submitted to a database and when all users had answered, the conference proctor would show the results. The results were a cfgraph Flash chart. The guy that wrote the polling app had some seriously crazy code happening when the user submitted answers.. things like inserting values to several tables _before_ the actually results could be inserted - due to FK relationships. The application would crash whenever more than 30 users were being polled. I calculated how many queries were run each time a user submitted one answer. There were 11. I came around, completely overhauled the system and for the answer submit stuff I wound up seeding the database with null answer values. This allowed me to write ONLY ONE query on the answer submit page. We ran the app through LoadRunner both before my changes and after. Simulatenous user load increased from 30 to 300 - the maximum we could test due to our LoadRunner license. Also of note, is that we ran the test with "human thinking" turned off and with LoadRunner slamming the form action page (answer submittal) with 300 users at the same time. The entire Web team was astonished at the results. This was with CF 5 with SQL 7. Just goes to show, that there is a right way and a wrong way to write code. | Aaron West | aaron AT trajiklyhip.com | http://www.trajiklyhip.com | Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion | Certified Macromedia Flash MX Developer -Original Message- From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:05 AM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: RE: was a tricky situation I did a report here about 2-3 years ago and it uses a rather "complicated" single query or did when I wrote the report. It was nice and fast to run and everything was there as per spec. Someone else was brought in on the project after I had moved on to a new one here. Instead of communicating to me any questions they might have on things they would sometimes end up redoing sections to their style. Their style though for that single report example was to end up adding queries inside some of the loops, so instead of just one running you have upwards of 25-30 running for that one page and it is now a good bit slow to run the report. The sad thing is he could have easily grabbed the added values he was asked to put into the report and stayed with just that same first query but his knowledge of SQL is poor and his true talents is graphics(the area where my skills are poor). I have redone pages here that had the same queries running more than once. I really think in those cases here that was someone just not realizing they could have had the query outside some of the logic and still been able to reference it within the logic they were trying to do. Snipe - On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > This week I am dealing with a page that makes at least 8 database calls all > the same, no caching etc, with more includes that a demented fusebox coder > would use. I ended up rewriting the page. Now its about 100 lines of code, > one database call and one include. > > As I said, sometiimes I think that some people develop pages strictly for > job security. The maintenance on the old page was ugly. > > larry > > -Original Message- > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > Subject: RE: was a tricky situation > > > I actually just remember even more recently than when I worked at the > University I came across bad coding practices. After working in such > scenarios I really do not think the ones I have been exposed to are for > job security, I think it is more of a lack of knowledge in the particular > task the people are setting out to get done. After hearing how Blackstone > is going to be more user friendly in hopes of gaining more > "programmers" of CF, I really wonder if that is just going to make life > harder on people. Seems like it might make people think they know a > language when really they know very little about it. > > Snipe - > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > > > It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name > that > > is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app > > was written more to provide job security than anything else. > > > > Larry > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM > > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > > Subject: Re: was a tricky situation > > > > > > When I was working at Rice Universit
RE: was a tricky situation
Agreed, its was a matter of inheritance. Someone initially designed the page (absolutely no scoping btw), then left the company. Others added their own kludges to it and probably moved on to other things. Then there were at least 2 upgrades (cf3.x to cf4.1 then to cf5, and now to MX), and chances are they just kludged things to make sure they worked with the current version. So you end up with stuff that was possibly good practice for CF 3.1 but real ugly when used with MX (20 database calls instead of using a structure for instance). Anyhow with all the add-ons and kludges, I've simply looked at the thing and made a case for rebuilding the entire site. larry -Original Message- From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:05 AM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: RE: was a tricky situation I did a report here about 2-3 years ago and it uses a rather "complicated" single query or did when I wrote the report. It was nice and fast to run and everything was there as per spec. Someone else was brought in on the project after I had moved on to a new one here. Instead of communicating to me any questions they might have on things they would sometimes end up redoing sections to their style. Their style though for that single report example was to end up adding queries inside some of the loops, so instead of just one running you have upwards of 25-30 running for that one page and it is now a good bit slow to run the report. The sad thing is he could have easily grabbed the added values he was asked to put into the report and stayed with just that same first query but his knowledge of SQL is poor and his true talents is graphics(the area where my skills are poor). I have redone pages here that had the same queries running more than once. I really think in those cases here that was someone just not realizing they could have had the query outside some of the logic and still been able to reference it within the logic they were trying to do. Snipe - On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > This week I am dealing with a page that makes at least 8 database calls all > the same, no caching etc, with more includes that a demented fusebox coder > would use. I ended up rewriting the page. Now its about 100 lines of code, > one database call and one include. > > As I said, sometiimes I think that some people develop pages strictly for > job security. The maintenance on the old page was ugly. > > larry > > -Original Message- > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > Subject: RE: was a tricky situation > > > I actually just remember even more recently than when I worked at the > University I came across bad coding practices. After working in such > scenarios I really do not think the ones I have been exposed to are for > job security, I think it is more of a lack of knowledge in the particular > task the people are setting out to get done. After hearing how Blackstone > is going to be more user friendly in hopes of gaining more > "programmers" of CF, I really wonder if that is just going to make life > harder on people. Seems like it might make people think they know a > language when really they know very little about it. > > Snipe - > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > > > It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name > that > > is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app > > was written more to provide job security than anything else. > > > > Larry > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM > > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > > Subject: Re: was a tricky situation > > > > > > When I was working at Rice University a few years back there were numerous > > code examples that match what you just gave. It was horrible to go in > > behind the developers who had made those systems and try to debug a > > problem. They were always very unaccepting of change in coding methods or > > much of anything else to top it all off. More times than not if I had to > > go into one of those applications to fix some reported error by a user, I > > would end up rewriting what ever piece was erroring out. I found it > > easier to do that than to try and figure out what they were attempting to > > do. > > > > Snipe - > > > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Joshua O'Connor-Rose wrote: > > > > > so here's an example. Its not wrong just hard to read > > > > > > all forms post to a page called process.cfm which does a cfif on the > name > > of the submit button. > > > > > > after a bit he found that the process page was getting too long so now > > there are pages called process2.cfm process3.cfm and so on. > > > > > > Are joins cumbersome in access? would they be bad to use in anycase they > > didn't exist so much until I got here. > > > > > > I have done my part, I have made numer
RE: was a tricky situation
I did a report here about 2-3 years ago and it uses a rather "complicated" single query or did when I wrote the report. It was nice and fast to run and everything was there as per spec. Someone else was brought in on the project after I had moved on to a new one here. Instead of communicating to me any questions they might have on things they would sometimes end up redoing sections to their style. Their style though for that single report example was to end up adding queries inside some of the loops, so instead of just one running you have upwards of 25-30 running for that one page and it is now a good bit slow to run the report. The sad thing is he could have easily grabbed the added values he was asked to put into the report and stayed with just that same first query but his knowledge of SQL is poor and his true talents is graphics(the area where my skills are poor). I have redone pages here that had the same queries running more than once. I really think in those cases here that was someone just not realizing they could have had the query outside some of the logic and still been able to reference it within the logic they were trying to do. Snipe - On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > This week I am dealing with a page that makes at least 8 database calls all > the same, no caching etc, with more includes that a demented fusebox coder > would use. I ended up rewriting the page. Now its about 100 lines of code, > one database call and one include. > > As I said, sometiimes I think that some people develop pages strictly for > job security. The maintenance on the old page was ugly. > > larry > > -Original Message- > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > Subject: RE: was a tricky situation > > > I actually just remember even more recently than when I worked at the > University I came across bad coding practices. After working in such > scenarios I really do not think the ones I have been exposed to are for > job security, I think it is more of a lack of knowledge in the particular > task the people are setting out to get done. After hearing how Blackstone > is going to be more user friendly in hopes of gaining more > "programmers" of CF, I really wonder if that is just going to make life > harder on people. Seems like it might make people think they know a > language when really they know very little about it. > > Snipe - > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > > > It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name > that > > is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app > > was written more to provide job security than anything else. > > > > Larry > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM > > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > > Subject: Re: was a tricky situation > > > > > > When I was working at Rice University a few years back there were numerous > > code examples that match what you just gave. It was horrible to go in > > behind the developers who had made those systems and try to debug a > > problem. They were always very unaccepting of change in coding methods or > > much of anything else to top it all off. More times than not if I had to > > go into one of those applications to fix some reported error by a user, I > > would end up rewriting what ever piece was erroring out. I found it > > easier to do that than to try and figure out what they were attempting to > > do. > > > > Snipe - > > > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Joshua O'Connor-Rose wrote: > > > > > so here's an example. Its not wrong just hard to read > > > > > > all forms post to a page called process.cfm which does a cfif on the > name > > of the submit button. > > > > > > after a bit he found that the process page was getting too long so now > > there are pages called process2.cfm process3.cfm and so on. > > > > > > Are joins cumbersome in access? would they be bad to use in anycase they > > didn't exist so much until I got here. > > > > > > I have done my part, I have made numerous recommendations to the > director > > of it (who the senior developer is not a part of) and warned about the > > stablity of a site that runs soley on access. > > > > > > my current joy is that I created the first application variable the > other > > day and so bit by bit I may be able to get some good logic going on. > > > > > > -Joshua O'Connor-Rose > > > -All is Good > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ > > > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: was a tricky situation
Up until now I thought Umbrage was just a Defense of the Dark Arts Teacher at Hogwarts (Year 5) At 10:42 AM 6/17/2004, you wrote: >I take umbrage at the term "demented fuseboxer coder" > > > _ > >From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM >To: CF-Jobs-Talk >Subject: RE: was a tricky situation > >This week I am dealing with a page that makes at least 8 database calls all >the same, no caching etc, with more includes that a demented fusebox coder >would use. I ended up rewriting the page. Now its about 100 lines of code, >one database call and one include. > >As I said, sometiimes I think that some people develop pages strictly for >job security. The maintenance on the old page was ugly. > >larry > >-Original Message- >From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM >To: CF-Jobs-Talk >Subject: RE: was a tricky situation > >I actually just remember even more recently than when I worked at the >University I came across bad coding practices. After working in such >scenarios I really do not think the ones I have been exposed to are for >job security, I think it is more of a lack of knowledge in the particular >task the people are setting out to get done. After hearing how Blackstone >is going to be more user friendly in hopes of gaining more >"programmers" of CF, I really wonder if that is just going to make life >harder on people. Seems like it might make people think they know a >language when really they know very little about it. > >Snipe - > >On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > > > It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name >that > > is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app > > was written more to provide job security than anything else. > > > > Larry > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM > > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > > Subject: Re: was a tricky situation > > > > > > When I was working at Rice University a few years back there were numerous > > code examples that match what you just gave. It was horrible to go in > > behind the developers who had made those systems and try to debug a > > problem. They were always very unaccepting of change in coding methods or > > much of anything else to top it all off. More times than not if I had to > > go into one of those applications to fix some reported error by a user, I > > would end up rewriting what ever piece was erroring out. I found it > > easier to do that than to try and figure out what they were attempting to > > do. > > > > Snipe - > > > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Joshua O'Connor-Rose wrote: > > > > > so here's an example. Its not wrong just hard to read > > > > > > all forms post to a page called process.cfm which does a cfif on the >name > > of the submit button. > > > > > > after a bit he found that the process page was getting too long so now > > there are pages called process2.cfm process3.cfm and so on. > > > > > > Are joins cumbersome in access? would they be bad to use in anycase they > > didn't exist so much until I got here. > > > > > > I have done my part, I have made numerous recommendations to the >director > > of it (who the senior developer is not a part of) and warned about the > > stablity of a site that runs soley on access. > > > > > > my current joy is that I created the first application variable the >other > > day and so bit by bit I may be able to get some good logic going on. > > > > > > -Joshua O'Connor-Rose > > > -All is Good > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ > _ > >-- >[Todays Threads] >[This Message] >[Subscription] >[Fast >Unsubscribe] [User Settings] >[Donations >and Support] > >-- > >[] > -- Jeffry Houser, Web Developer, Writer, Songwriter, Recording Engineer -- AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773 -- My Books: Recording Music: Original Energetic Acoustic Rock: [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: was a tricky situation
Come now Sandy, everyone knows you only get demented on the weekends. larry -Original Message- From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:43 AM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: RE: was a tricky situation I take umbrage at the term "demented fuseboxer coder" _ From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: RE: was a tricky situation This week I am dealing with a page that makes at least 8 database calls all the same, no caching etc, with more includes that a demented fusebox coder would use. I ended up rewriting the page. Now its about 100 lines of code, one database call and one include. As I said, sometiimes I think that some people develop pages strictly for job security. The maintenance on the old page was ugly. larry -Original Message- From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: RE: was a tricky situation I actually just remember even more recently than when I worked at the University I came across bad coding practices. After working in such scenarios I really do not think the ones I have been exposed to are for job security, I think it is more of a lack of knowledge in the particular task the people are setting out to get done. After hearing how Blackstone is going to be more user friendly in hopes of gaining more "programmers" of CF, I really wonder if that is just going to make life harder on people. Seems like it might make people think they know a language when really they know very little about it. Snipe - On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name that > is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app > was written more to provide job security than anything else. > > Larry > > -Original Message- > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > Subject: Re: was a tricky situation > > > When I was working at Rice University a few years back there were numerous > code examples that match what you just gave. It was horrible to go in > behind the developers who had made those systems and try to debug a > problem. They were always very unaccepting of change in coding methods or > much of anything else to top it all off. More times than not if I had to > go into one of those applications to fix some reported error by a user, I > would end up rewriting what ever piece was erroring out. I found it > easier to do that than to try and figure out what they were attempting to > do. > > Snipe - > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Joshua O'Connor-Rose wrote: > > > so here's an example. Its not wrong just hard to read > > > > all forms post to a page called process.cfm which does a cfif on the name > of the submit button. > > > > after a bit he found that the process page was getting too long so now > there are pages called process2.cfm process3.cfm and so on. > > > > Are joins cumbersome in access? would they be bad to use in anycase they > didn't exist so much until I got here. > > > > I have done my part, I have made numerous recommendations to the director > of it (who the senior developer is not a part of) and warned about the > stablity of a site that runs soley on access. > > > > my current joy is that I created the first application variable the other > day and so bit by bit I may be able to get some good logic going on. > > > > -Joshua O'Connor-Rose > > -All is Good > > > > > > > > _ _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: was a tricky situation
I take umbrage at the term "demented fuseboxer coder" _ From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: RE: was a tricky situation This week I am dealing with a page that makes at least 8 database calls all the same, no caching etc, with more includes that a demented fusebox coder would use. I ended up rewriting the page. Now its about 100 lines of code, one database call and one include. As I said, sometiimes I think that some people develop pages strictly for job security. The maintenance on the old page was ugly. larry -Original Message- From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: RE: was a tricky situation I actually just remember even more recently than when I worked at the University I came across bad coding practices. After working in such scenarios I really do not think the ones I have been exposed to are for job security, I think it is more of a lack of knowledge in the particular task the people are setting out to get done. After hearing how Blackstone is going to be more user friendly in hopes of gaining more "programmers" of CF, I really wonder if that is just going to make life harder on people. Seems like it might make people think they know a language when really they know very little about it. Snipe - On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name that > is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app > was written more to provide job security than anything else. > > Larry > > -Original Message- > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > Subject: Re: was a tricky situation > > > When I was working at Rice University a few years back there were numerous > code examples that match what you just gave. It was horrible to go in > behind the developers who had made those systems and try to debug a > problem. They were always very unaccepting of change in coding methods or > much of anything else to top it all off. More times than not if I had to > go into one of those applications to fix some reported error by a user, I > would end up rewriting what ever piece was erroring out. I found it > easier to do that than to try and figure out what they were attempting to > do. > > Snipe - > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Joshua O'Connor-Rose wrote: > > > so here's an example. Its not wrong just hard to read > > > > all forms post to a page called process.cfm which does a cfif on the name > of the submit button. > > > > after a bit he found that the process page was getting too long so now > there are pages called process2.cfm process3.cfm and so on. > > > > Are joins cumbersome in access? would they be bad to use in anycase they > didn't exist so much until I got here. > > > > I have done my part, I have made numerous recommendations to the director > of it (who the senior developer is not a part of) and warned about the > stablity of a site that runs soley on access. > > > > my current joy is that I created the first application variable the other > day and so bit by bit I may be able to get some good logic going on. > > > > -Joshua O'Connor-Rose > > -All is Good > > > > > > > > _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: was a tricky situation
This week I am dealing with a page that makes at least 8 database calls all the same, no caching etc, with more includes that a demented fusebox coder would use. I ended up rewriting the page. Now its about 100 lines of code, one database call and one include. As I said, sometiimes I think that some people develop pages strictly for job security. The maintenance on the old page was ugly. larry -Original Message- From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:31 AM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: RE: was a tricky situation I actually just remember even more recently than when I worked at the University I came across bad coding practices. After working in such scenarios I really do not think the ones I have been exposed to are for job security, I think it is more of a lack of knowledge in the particular task the people are setting out to get done. After hearing how Blackstone is going to be more user friendly in hopes of gaining more "programmers" of CF, I really wonder if that is just going to make life harder on people. Seems like it might make people think they know a language when really they know very little about it. Snipe - On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name that > is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app > was written more to provide job security than anything else. > > Larry > > -Original Message- > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > Subject: Re: was a tricky situation > > > When I was working at Rice University a few years back there were numerous > code examples that match what you just gave. It was horrible to go in > behind the developers who had made those systems and try to debug a > problem. They were always very unaccepting of change in coding methods or > much of anything else to top it all off. More times than not if I had to > go into one of those applications to fix some reported error by a user, I > would end up rewriting what ever piece was erroring out. I found it > easier to do that than to try and figure out what they were attempting to > do. > > Snipe - > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Joshua O'Connor-Rose wrote: > > > so here's an example. Its not wrong just hard to read > > > > all forms post to a page called process.cfm which does a cfif on the name > of the submit button. > > > > after a bit he found that the process page was getting too long so now > there are pages called process2.cfm process3.cfm and so on. > > > > Are joins cumbersome in access? would they be bad to use in anycase they > didn't exist so much until I got here. > > > > I have done my part, I have made numerous recommendations to the director > of it (who the senior developer is not a part of) and warned about the > stablity of a site that runs soley on access. > > > > my current joy is that I created the first application variable the other > day and so bit by bit I may be able to get some good logic going on. > > > > -Joshua O'Connor-Rose > > -All is Good > > > > > > > > _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: was a tricky situation
I actually just remember even more recently than when I worked at the University I came across bad coding practices. After working in such scenarios I really do not think the ones I have been exposed to are for job security, I think it is more of a lack of knowledge in the particular task the people are setting out to get done. After hearing how Blackstone is going to be more user friendly in hopes of gaining more "programmers" of CF, I really wonder if that is just going to make life harder on people. Seems like it might make people think they know a language when really they know very little about it. Snipe - On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Lyons, Larry wrote: > It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name that > is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app > was written more to provide job security than anything else. > > Larry > > -Original Message- > From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM > To: CF-Jobs-Talk > Subject: Re: was a tricky situation > > > When I was working at Rice University a few years back there were numerous > code examples that match what you just gave. It was horrible to go in > behind the developers who had made those systems and try to debug a > problem. They were always very unaccepting of change in coding methods or > much of anything else to top it all off. More times than not if I had to > go into one of those applications to fix some reported error by a user, I > would end up rewriting what ever piece was erroring out. I found it > easier to do that than to try and figure out what they were attempting to > do. > > Snipe - > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Joshua O'Connor-Rose wrote: > > > so here's an example. Its not wrong just hard to read > > > > all forms post to a page called process.cfm which does a cfif on the name > of the submit button. > > > > after a bit he found that the process page was getting too long so now > there are pages called process2.cfm process3.cfm and so on. > > > > Are joins cumbersome in access? would they be bad to use in anycase they > didn't exist so much until I got here. > > > > I have done my part, I have made numerous recommendations to the director > of it (who the senior developer is not a part of) and warned about the > stablity of a site that runs soley on access. > > > > my current joy is that I created the first application variable the other > day and so bit by bit I may be able to get some good logic going on. > > > > -Joshua O'Connor-Rose > > -All is Good > > > > > > > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: was a tricky situation
My current big project is starting to be a nightmare. It is very odd the way things have come together. They designed a very flexible database structure and it will handle just about anything they ask about. However, we are running into a lot of limitations in the code. As a simplified example, there is a category table and an item table. It is implemented as a standard one to many relationship (The category can have many items, but each item in only one category). During app initialization we load a lot of data from this table into memory / app scope. But, it is loaded in such a way that each category can only have one item. I "fixed" the init code, but it broke a lot of code that assumed each category would have only a single item. I had to roll back to a previous version of the code so the site would work. Our solution was in the admin to *document* the fact that each "item" must have a unique category. Nothing prevents users from creating non-unique categories, just some documentation (which will be forgotten in a week). I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. They all make the best decisions they can in the best interests of the company. The reason they make bad decisions is either a mistake or incompetence. At 08:38 AM 6/17/2004, you wrote: >It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name that >is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app >was written more to provide job security than anything else. > >Larry > > >-Original Message- >From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM >To: CF-Jobs-Talk >Subject: Re: was a tricky situation > >When I was working at Rice University a few years back there were numerous >code examples that match what you just gave. It was horrible to go in >behind the developers who had made those systems and try to debug a >problem. They were always very unaccepting of change in coding methods or >much of anything else to top it all off. More times than not if I had to >go into one of those applications to fix some reported error by a user, I >would end up rewriting what ever piece was erroring out. I found it >easier to do that than to try and figure out what they were attempting to >do. > >Snipe - > >On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Joshua O'Connor-Rose wrote: > > > so here's an example. Its not wrong just hard to read > > > > all forms post to a page called process.cfm which does a cfif on the name >of the submit button. > > > > after a bit he found that the process page was getting too long so now >there are pages called process2.cfm process3.cfm and so on. > > > > Are joins cumbersome in access? would they be bad to use in anycase they >didn't exist so much until I got here. > > > > I have done my part, I have made numerous recommendations to the director >of it (who the senior developer is not a part of) and warned about the >stablity of a site that runs soley on access. > > > > my current joy is that I created the first application variable the other >day and so bit by bit I may be able to get some good logic going on. > > > > -Joshua O'Connor-Rose > > -All is Good > > > > > >-- >[Todays Threads] >[This Message] >[Subscription] >[Fast >Unsubscribe] [User Settings] >[Donations >and Support] > >-- > >[] > -- Jeffry Houser, Web Developer, Writer, Songwriter, Recording Engineer -- AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773 -- My Books: Recording Music: Original Energetic Acoustic Rock: [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: was a tricky situation
It very sounds like sites I've recently worked on, without naming name that is. AS far as I can figure at least some of the time an approach, the app was written more to provide job security than anything else. Larry -Original Message- From: Aaron Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:50 PM To: CF-Jobs-Talk Subject: Re: was a tricky situation When I was working at Rice University a few years back there were numerous code examples that match what you just gave. It was horrible to go in behind the developers who had made those systems and try to debug a problem. They were always very unaccepting of change in coding methods or much of anything else to top it all off. More times than not if I had to go into one of those applications to fix some reported error by a user, I would end up rewriting what ever piece was erroring out. I found it easier to do that than to try and figure out what they were attempting to do. Snipe - On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Joshua O'Connor-Rose wrote: > so here's an example. Its not wrong just hard to read > > all forms post to a page called process.cfm which does a cfif on the name of the submit button. > > after a bit he found that the process page was getting too long so now there are pages called process2.cfm process3.cfm and so on. > > Are joins cumbersome in access? would they be bad to use in anycase they didn't exist so much until I got here. > > I have done my part, I have made numerous recommendations to the director of it (who the senior developer is not a part of) and warned about the stablity of a site that runs soley on access. > > my current joy is that I created the first application variable the other day and so bit by bit I may be able to get some good logic going on. > > -Joshua O'Connor-Rose > -All is Good > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
