Sorry, that's silly. A bug can't exist without a requirement. Where was this 
requirement ever established? What in the design implies that this was a 
requirement? The API very clearly represents a process that reads the entire 
file into memory.

It sounds like it doesn't meet a requirement that you came up with. That isn't 
the definition of a "bug", well except for the purposes of trolling on mailing 
lists I suppose.

-David


On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:16 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> when code will not handle real world data, it is broken.
> you and I discussed this when importing xml file and I choose to parse
> them manually instead of using DOM.
> So what term is there besides bug for broken design.
> 
> =========================
> BJ Freeman
> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation 
> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> 
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> 
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> Linkedin
> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
> 
> 
> David E Jones sent the following on 3/15/2010 6:05 PM:
>> On Mar 15, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>> 
>>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>> one of my smaller import files (8mb) is taking forever to be read in and
>>>> there is no output.
>>>> I am seeing the memory rail against the max setting.
>>>> got this error.
>>> The datafile set of classes is very broken for large files.  It has a
>>> List<Record>, which means it will copy the entire file into memory
>>> before doing anything with it.  The datafile code is not designed to
>>> handle large files.
>>> 
>>> I consider this a bug that needs to be fixed.  Checking...
>> 
>> This should be possible, but may require API changes. The problem is that, 
>> like XML, data files can be hierarchical and a "node" can have header and 
>> footer lines in the file.
>> 
>> I wouldn't consider this a bug, just like XML DOM parsing is not a "bug". Of 
>> course, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
>> 
>> -David
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to