Sunday 31 July 2005 — This is nearly 18 years old. Be careful.
When designing a data format that has to last a long time and be extensible, for goodness sake, think twice (or even three times) before using booleans. Too often, I’ve represented what seemed like a simple yes or no choice as a boolean, only to see it eventually fracturing into a range of choices. The simple and optimistically chosen boolean ends up being deprecated in favor of a multi-faceted enumeration, but the old code is stuck in its simplistic this-or-that view of the world.
This applies to all sorts of interfaces: protocols, APIs, file formats, and so on. Any time you have data shared by two pieces of code, and you can’t change both chunks of code any time you want to, you have to worry about backward compatibility. If one of those pieces of data is a boolean, you will eventually need to change it, take my word for it.
Actually, even choosing an enumeration in the first place doesn’t save you from the difficulty of upgrading. For example, suppose you have two types of Things, regular and special. Queries in the code will look like this:
select * from Things where type = 'regular'
select * from Things where type = 'special'
Then in version 2, you add a third type of Thing, call it “unusual”. What happens to the queries? Are they still correct? You’ll have to look carefully at what the data is used for, and figure out whether unusual Things should have been included or not. Maybe selecting all the special Things should really have been selecting all the non-regular Things:
select * from Things where type != 'regular'
If you have the luxury of changing the queries, you are in good shape, you only have to change a bunch of code. If you can’t change the queries, perhaps because they are fossilized in previous versions of your product that are deployed in the wild, then you have a real problem.
I don’t know what the best answer to this conundrum is. Unless you can truly plan your semantics for all future versions at the very beginning, you are going to end up splitting concepts like this. One option is to do ugly tricks like have the “unusual” Things not appear in the Things table at all, and instead put them in a new table altogether. Then old code will still work (the new incomprehensible Things won’t appear to them), and new code can be written to find them where they are. But you have an ugly data model now, and all future users of it are burdened with strangenesses like Things and UnusualThings. Ick.
With binary interfaces, the most common solution i've seen was just to bunch up alot of placeholders here or there that will be used when needed. This is obvioussly suboptimal and a bit annoying to program to.
On a different note, for a lot of my db applications I use datetimes that defaults to '+infinity' that can be used as "booleans" (eg. SELECT submitted_date < now() AS is_submitted;)
The added advantage is that not only do you get a fast boolean (datetimes are much faster than varchars) but you also get an automatic record of when this "switch"/bool was changed.
Add a comment: