NX: also a 48 hours question for URLyBird

[Malik Idrees]

hi
This line is really making me curios:
"They take bookings only within 48 hours of the start of room occupancy"
i have searched the forum and there are some postings about it, but am not that clear on it.
does it mean that:
URLyBird will book a room for customers only within 48 hours of the room becoming empty? If more thatn 2 days pass after room becoming empty then they dont book it for customer?
is that the meaning? can someone explain it in simple english!
shouldnt it be like: "They take bookings only within 48 hours of the start of room vacancy"?
is my english that bad?!?!

[ September 11, 2003: Message edited by: Malik Idrees ]

[Mark Spritzler]

Who's on first?
Mark

[Philippe Maquet]

Hi Malik,
Welcome to the ranch.
You are begining very well with a problem rarely posted about URLyBird assignment ! As that "48 hours" information belongs to the "general overview" part of our assignment, we don't know if it is mentioned "just for info" or if we must deal with it. We don't know.
And it brings another question : does the time has an influence on the "bookable state" of the records ? Does a CSR need to be able to book a yesterday-available room ? We don't know.
As we don't know and as we shouldn't ask questions, I decided to abstract the bookable state / time relashionship :
A room may be booked if :

it is available (not booked by another customer yet)

its availability date and now() fall into an acceptable time range

As we don't know for sure what that "acceptable time range" is, I would define as -d1 ... n ... +d2, where n is "now", -d1 is the number of days before "now" (with a special value NO_LIMIT_FOR_PAST) and +d2 is the number of days after "now" (with a special value NO_LIMIT_FOR_FUTURE).
With those two additional properties (d1 and d2), we cover all possible cases IMO, and we are sure to fulfill the requirements.
Best,
Phil.
PS:

is my english that bad?!?!

English is not our language on this forum, just a common communication protocol for the majority of us who are not english native-speakers. I understood you (anyway I hope so), you undertood my answer, and for the rest...
[ September 11, 2003: Message edited by: Philippe Maquet ]

[Andrew Monkhouse]

Hi Everyone,
Malik - I generally accept Philippe's reading.
Mark - Exactly!
Philippe - what are your default values for this acceptable time range? I would think -24 and +48 hours. And do you allow them to be set in the GUI? (In theory they have to be since all configuration has to be done via the GUI, but in practice I would not want a client to be able to change this themselves).
Which then brings another question - is this date check done client side or server side? Modifyable client side is dangerous - the client should not be able to modify business rules. But server side means that the server is doing more work. I think either option is OK for this assignment, as long as it is justified. (There are more esoteric solutions, such as dynamically downloading the verification code from the server but let's not go there )
Regards, Andrew

[Philippe Maquet]

Hi Andrew,
Mark
Who's on first?
Andrew:
Mark - Exactly!
Did you lay a bet ? If true, who's the winner ?

Philippe - what are your default values for this acceptable time range?

I thought about 0 ... +48 hours, but without any deep thought on it as they can be changed.

And do you allow them to be set in the GUI?

No choice here, it's mandatory : our instructions say that all properties must be set through a GUI.

(In theory they have to be since all configuration has to be done via the GUI, but in practice I would not want a client to be able to change this themselves)

In my mind, it's a server-side property of course.

But server side means that the server is doing more work.

More work ? I need a server GUI anyway (for the listen port and db name properties at least).
Best,
Phil.

[Malik Idrees]

Hi..
i read here also that some 'pester' sun into reevaluating their submissions.
should i just ask them what they mean exactly by that line? and then 'pester' them

isnt' it too ambigous?

[Andrew Monkhouse]

Hi Philippe,

[Mark]Who's on first?
[Andrew]Exactly
[Philippe]Did you lay a bet ? If true, who's the winner ?

No, Who is not the winner: Who's on first!
This is from an old Abbott & Costello comedy based on deliberate confusion with the English language. You can read the sketch here.
Regarding all the comments you wrote that was on topic for SCJD :roll: - I agree with everything you wrote. It all looks great.
Regards, Andrew

[Andrew Monkhouse]

Hi Malik,
To pester is to bother or annoy someone. Generally by repeating annoying behavior. In this case it would apply to repeatedly asking Sun for re-evaluation. Generally not a good idea.
Sun have stated that there is no re-evaluation or discussion of submissions. If you fail, then that is it - you must do a new submission.
But some people have failed for reasons that were generally considered by people in this forum to be not valid. So those failed candidates asked Sun for a re-evaluation. In some cases Sun have re-evaluated and passed the person. This action by Sun is nice, but it cannot be relied on if you fail.
Regards, Andrew

[Philippe Maquet]

Hi Andrew,
Thank you for having shared it with me, that sketch is excellent and of course I didn't know it.
Best,
Phil.

[Malik Idrees]

Hi Andrew,
i was mentioning pestering with regard to the 48 hour thing, not the reevaluation. i just used that as an example.
they state that if 'you really need to ask' do so in a shot consise manner, so am actually wondering if i should email them about the 48 hour thing. that all.
thanx