LinkedIn dynamic button rendering

It has become standard to offer sharing functionality via major platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn on websites. Most of the platform providers have multiple options for inserting their sharing features often including the use of an iFrame.
LinkedIn is slightly different however choosing only to offer a javascript based solution similar to the following:

<script src=”//” type=”text/javascript”></script>

Above the inclusion of the required javascript function, and below the addition of sharing functionality where required.

<script type=”IN/Share”></script>

When asynchronous pagination gets involved however this lack of an iFrame causes an issue: the javascript is not called as the asynchronous load takes place. This issue stumped me for for a while until I found the simple solution to call:


Eugene O’Neill (Web Developer for LinkedIn) has stated:

1) IN.Parse() and IN.Init() are here to stay. While we do employ the policy that any undocumented methods may or may not be supported indefinitely, these two are uniquely crucial to the functionality of the framework. The amount of work it would require to remove IN.Parse()… I don’t even want to think about it. IN.Init() is our preferred method for loading the framework asynchronously and won’t be going anywhere. Feel free to use either method.

MySQL zerofill for numerical types

MySQL has a feature for numerical types known as zerofill which effects the display size of numerical types. Unlike string types, the number inside the parentheses is not the storage size in characters for the type. For numerical types the type name itself solely determines storage size.

Column Type Bytes On Disk Signed Storage Range Unsigned Storage Range
tinyint 1 byte -128 to 127 0 to 255
smallint 2 bytes -32768 to 32767 0 to 65535
mediumint 3 bytes -8388608 to 8388607 0 to 16777215
int 4 bytes -2147483648 to 2147483647 0 to 4294967295
bigint 8 bytes -9223372036854775808 to 9223372036854775807 0 to 18446744073709551615

So zerofill with default width – the same as int(10):

mysql> create table test_table (t int zerofill);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.02 sec)

mysql> insert into test_table set t = 10;
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.02 sec)

mysql> select * from test_table;
| t |
| 0000000010 |
1 row in set (0.08 sec)

And without zerofill:

mysql> create table test_table (t int);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec)

mysql> insert into test_table set t = 10;
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.01 sec)

mysql> select * from test_table;
| t |
| 10 |
1 row in set (0.01 sec)

A common usage for is creating invoice ids such as INV00000945.

If you do not have zerofill specified there is no difference between int(3) and int(10)
When doing comparisons: if compared as integers then the values are the same; if you compare as strings the values are different.