Poll: Mechanics of micturition

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Through the commercially provided access route, or "up and over"?

[Marc Peabody]

... but I just might be in Scotland afore ye.

[Ben Souther]

Up and over.
Commercially provided access routes have brass teeth.

[marc weber]

Originally posted by Ben Souther:
... Commercially provided access routes have brass teeth.

A fetish unto themselves. :roll: :roll:

[marc weber]

There are at least two layers of security to consider. For the outer firewall (the public interface), a commercially provided socket provides streamlined functionality, despite the occasional glitch already mentioned. But my inner firewalls have no such implementation, leaving "up and over" the only feasible route -- unless I'm in a position to take the firewall down entirely .

[marc weber]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
Through the commercially provided access route, or "up and over"?

Ernest, welcome to JavaRanch!

We're here to help, but we need you to Show Some Effort. What have you tried so far?

[Marc Peabody]

Just look at my last name. I choose neither!

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Originally posted by marc weber:

Ernest, welcome to JavaRanch!

We're here to help, but we need you to Show Some Effort. What have you tried so far?

My problem is that the commercial solutions don't provide the necessary bandwidth. Taking both firewalls down is the only solution that works for me.

[Ben Souther]

Look at you..

[marc weber]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
... My problem is that the commercial solutions don't provide the necessary bandwidth...

Have you tried BigInteger?

[marc weber]

I assume you're already using a BufferedOutputStream and handling any possible BufferOverflowException.

If you're throwing a BufferUnderflowException, then you should have a consultant evaluate the business logic.

[marc weber]

PS: I propose we rename this forum, "Meaningless Dribble." :roll:

[David O'Meara]

this is one case where I do not recommend buffering the output stream. You should check the API, before close() I also recommend a flush(). Strange that every implementation I know rejects them in opposite order.

FYI:Either up and over or astride.

[marc weber]

Originally posted by David O'Meara:
this is one case where I do not recommend buffering the output stream...

I thought that might avoid an InterruptedException. Oh, wait... That's something else.

[marc weber]

Now that I think about this, isn't the whole issue platform dependent? I mean, aren't you assuming a particular operating system here?

[marc weber]

EFH: Your PM mailbox is full.

I'll just point out that to use Swing, you need to import the package.

[David O'Meara]

my mistake, the buffer is on the receiving end, it would be appropriate to flush() there. Normally I'm in favour of programming to an interface and leaving the implementation invisible.. no scratch that, I'm keen to remain in the dark.

[Ben Souther]

Originally posted by marc weber:
- unless I'm in a position to take the firewall down entirely

A serious breach of etiquette.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Originally posted by marc weber:
EFH: Your PM mailbox is full.

I'll just point out that to use Swing, you need to import the package.

Bwahahahhaaa!

[marc weber]

Originally posted by Ben Souther:
...A serious breach of etiquette.

Huh, huh... You said, "breech." Huh, huh... That was cool. Huh, huh, huh...

[Marc Peabody]

Originally posted by Ben Souther:
A serious breach of etiquette.

Sometimes it's necessary. For instance, in case of a heap dump.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Originally posted by Marc Peabody:

For instance, in case of a heap dump.

Let's keep this on topic, please. I don't want to have to... move... your post.

[Bear Bibeault]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
Let's keep this on topic, please. I don't want to have to... move... your post.

He says with a bow, well, movement of some sort.

[marc weber]

Well, the "up and over" route certainly enjoys support in popular culture, as evidenced by the 1983 song by James Ingram and Michael McDonald, "Yah Mo B There."

[marc weber]

(Huh, huh... I said, "enjoys support." Huh, huh...)

[marc weber]

Originally posted by marc weber:
Now that I think about this, isn't the whole issue platform dependent? I mean, aren't you assuming a particular operating system here?

FYI: I use WinZip on Windows, and StuffIt on Mac.

[marc weber]

The Gemini astronauts drank Tang, didn't they?

[Marc Peabody]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
Let's keep this on topic, please. I don't want to have to... move... your post.

What? Not a fan of concurrent processing?

[marc weber]

Originally posted by Bear Bibeault:
... He says with a bow, well, movement of some sort.

Fine line, but clever.

[Ben Souther]

Originally posted by marc weber:

Fine line, but clever.

Bear's a cunning linguist.

[Bear Bibeault]

[marc weber]

That "fine line" I was talking about...

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Indeed, we're talking about one specific use for this package.

[Ryan McGuire]

I've always found the standard access ports in the commercially available firewalls to be sufficient for stream-oriented output.

I HAVE discovered that even these normal routes of access aren't needed when the output is going directly to a pool.

[Marc Peabody]

Originally posted by Ryan McGuire:
I HAVE discovered that even these normal routes of access aren't needed when the output is going directly to a pool.

That's a rookie move. You've really made me rethink pooling. I always assumed most people were too concerned about integrity to try that.

Ben, you're completely off-topic and slightly creepy. *Frantically scribbles something down.*

[Ryan McGuire]

Originally posted by Marc Peabody:

That's a rookie move. You've really made me rethink pooling. I always assumed most people were too concerned about integrity to try that.

I didn't mean to imply that I take advantage of the anonymous stream output to a pool -- merely that I've noticed the problem. Luckily, the public-access systems near me with such setups implement a number of filters and anti-virus systems.

Oh yeah...
Don't get me started about logging issues in that type of environment.
[ December 10, 2007: Message edited by: Ryan McGuire ]

[Ben Souther]

Originally posted by Marc Peabody:

Ben, you're completely off-topic and slightly creepy. *Frantically scribbles something down.*

I was merely complimenting another rancher on his fine ability with words.
I'm not sure what you sickos are reading into it.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

The thing about pooling is that you can do streaming while maintaining a private member.

[Marc Peabody]

Well put. I agree that keeping the business and the view separate is best.

However, eliminating the roundtrip of calls will land you in serious trouble when you find through your next refactoring a cluster that is very difficult to clean up. Even worse, if you have a bug when going to production, everyone will know it's your fault.

Clearly, doing "the simplest thing that works" isn't always the best practice.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

While we're on the topic: which automatic refactorings do you find most useful in the cleanup phase?

-- Pull up member?
-- Push down member?
-- Move member?

Personally I find quick alternation of the first two does the trick. On the other hand, I find that "inline member" makes streaming more or less impossible.