|
|
Posted by Gary L. Burnore on 01/06/08 19:34
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:13:06 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:05:49 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> flowover wrote:
>>>> On Jan 4, 6:46 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> Rowan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the best approach to caching database results. example say i'm
>>>>>> doign an update on several entries which i've loaded into an array. I
>>>>>> want to allow the user to click through and up date each array entry
>>>>>> then dump everythign to the db once they are done...
>>>>> Don't bother. It's normally cheaper to just keep track of the ID's and
>>>>> fetch the results again.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should be fetching them again before updating anyway, and verifying
>>>>> the rows haven't changed (i.e. two people updating at the same time).
>>>>>
>>>> If you're writing the site to scale then yes, plan for multi users
>>>> being in there changing. If the site is just an administration
>>>> backend that you know isn't going to have more than one person making
>>>> changes at a time, stuff that array in a session. This requires
>>>> either a big ugly key in your URL or a cookie though, but imo is the
>>>> best way to cache data between requests.
>>>>
>>> You should ALWAYS write the site to scale. It's not any harder. And
>>> even if it is just an "administrative back end", are you SURE there will
>>> never be two administrators changing at the same time?
>>>
>>> Such "assumptions" are traps waiting to spring.
>>
>> You can tell him what to do but not how? Some trainer YOU are.
>>
>> How's that "ignoring me" thing going, Jerry?
>
>
>Nope, I don't need to ignore you, Gary.
Yet another lie, Jerry. You wonder why people call you a fraud? That's
why.
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <flpm8j$fo3$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
Message-ID: <l8OdnVhmOI9Lwh3anZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com>
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>Jerry wrote:
>> I have been attacked and maligned by two trolls in a.w.w
>> who have cross-posted to c.l.p. and other newsgroups.
>> I will not let those go away.
>
> Because you're owned. Owned owned owned.
>
...
So from now on I'll just ignore you - like the ignorant
should be.
and then
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <flr7mb$ksv$10@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
Message-ID: <fOednbv3-8notRzanZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@comcast.com>
> How's that "ignoring me" thing going, Jerry?
Nope, I don't need to ignore you, Gary. I OWN YOU.
And you keep proving it. ROFLMAO, ignorant twit.
--
Jerry, after being informed he's owned:
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
Message-ID: <0dednTq9RfzNuBzanZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@comcast.com>
I OWN YOU, Troll. And you've proven it.
Jerry claims suing is illegal
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
Message-ID: <dMWdnRMixOBvfx3anZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>
You'd like that, wouldn't you? But I don't need to sue you. There
are other ways to handle people like you. I prefer the legal ways.
Jerry on websites:
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
Message-ID: <ZfSdnXhomogIeh3anZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com>
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:57:07 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Ok, let's tell your employer you're a criminal and a fraud.
>> See if you like it?
>
> Go for it, dipshit. I've been called far worse. My employer is
> DataBasix.com. OOPS! Too bad for you.
>
Oh, you mean the one who can't even keep a website running?
ROFLMAO!
While also saying
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
Message-ID: <dMWdnRMixOBvfx3anZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>
WRONG ANSWER, FRAUD. It has been and is registered. You just
can't find a web page for it. Sorry, troll.
Another lie set:
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <flpm8j$fo3$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
Message-ID: <l8OdnVhmOI9Lwh3anZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com>
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>Jerry wrote:
>> I have been attacked and maligned by two trolls in a.w.w
>> who have cross-posted to c.l.p. and other newsgroups.
>> I will not let those go away.
>
> Because you're owned. Owned owned owned.
>
...
So from now on I'll just ignore you - like the ignorant
should be.
and then
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <flr7mb$ksv$10@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
Message-ID: <fOednbv3-8notRzanZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@comcast.com>
> How's that "ignoring me" thing going, Jerry?
Nope, I don't need to ignore you, Gary. I OWN YOU.
And you keep proving it. ROFLMAO, ignorant twit.
[Back to original message]
|