- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] Aida 6.6 Web Framework Released

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> >> >> New version of Aida/Web framework and application server >> (http://www.aidaweb.si) is here with: >> >> - optimization on HTTP level to send first byte to the client as soon >> as possible >> - streaming of HTML, specially header to get first byte out >> immediately, >> - gzip compression of all text stuff like CSS, JS etc >> - CSS Sprites support added >> - internal vs. extarnal IP detection, to control access rights >> accordingly >> - Geolocation support improved >> - all JS and CSS libraries updated to latest versions, Twitter >> Bootstrap v3 added in parallel to v2.x > > Great work, thanks, Janko. + 1 Janko if you need scripts to migrate to SmalltalkHub let me know.

Aug. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Group and member with Voyage

by James Foster

Hi Esteban, It seems that I mistook the question for something easy enough for me to answer! Unfortunately, I don't have any knowledge of Voyage+MongoDB so can't really give the proper answer. James On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for your response. You are right, the Pattern is quite common, > if not ubiquous in all systems. > > My particular question is related with Voyage+MongoDB, and also could > apply to Magritte (given the fact Voyage "inherits" its descriptions > model). > > I sucessfully implemented this pattern with ORMs using an intermediary > table for the relation, or even reifying the relation as a first class > object. > I also used the #select: technique to avoid duplication of > "responsibility" and caching at one side of the relation. > But I always did it "in memory" with no mapping et all, just plain old > smalltalk objects (POSO?) and using ORM solutions. > > What I need to know now is: > 1) How to do this with voyage+MongoDB > 2) I want to have a two way relation, it is both members and groups > have a collection (members know their groups and viceversa). This > requires additional maintenance, but with a higher performance, and > doesn't require me to load all groups if I'm just materializing one > member. > > > Regards! > > Esteban A. Maringolo > > > 2013/8/30 James Foster <Smalltalk(a)jgfoster.net>: >> Hi Esteban, >> >> What you have described is quite common and there are a variety of ways of designing this sort of object model. If you were dealing with a relational database, then you would have a Group table, a Member table, and a Membership table. The Membership table would have one row for each member/group pair and the member ID and group ID would be the primary columns (perhaps with other things like date joined, date expired, etc.). With an index on the member ID and group ID, one could quickly find all the groups for a member and all the members for a group, and each piece of data would exist in only one place ("normalized"). One could take a similar approach with objects, having three collections containing Groups, Members, and Memberships respectively. You could have an accessor in Group that returned members based on a select from the Memberships collection and an accessor in Member that returned groups based on a select from the Memberships collection. >> >> Alternatively, if you wanted to avoid the #'select:' call in one or both lookups, you can cache the respective subcollections in Group and/or Member and drop the Memberships collection. If you cache in only one place (e.g., each Group has a collection of Members), then you can add a method in Member that does a #'select:' of Groups where a Group has the Member. If you cache in both places then your getters/setters in each can update the other (with the understanding that you are duplicating data to get performance efficiency). >> >> Again, this problem is very common. Consider students in classes, persons with addresses, persons with hobbies, etc. Your choices are basically (1) three collections, no duplicates, select for both queries; (2) two collections, no duplicates, cache for one query, select for the other query; and (3) two collections, caches for each query. Which is preferable depends on your typical sizes and lookup patterns. If performance is not an issue, then start with whatever is simplest for you to code. I lean toward the three collections with the lookup penalty (GemStone's ability to index collections makes this approach very efficient), but if most of your lookups are from one side or the other and scanning the full collection is slow, then cache in one or both places. >> >> If you have a composite, the analysis is similar since Smalltalk does not require static typing of variables. You just need to take care that your accessors can give back the expected objects. >> >> James >> >> On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Let's say I have a class Group and a class Member. >>> >>> aGroup has many members. >>> and aMember can belong to many groups. >>> >>> What is the "proper" voyageDescription for those one to many relations? >>> >>> Should I do something extra? >>> >>> Everytime I add a member to the group, both the member and the group >>> get their references updated. >>> Now when I add a member to a group and save it, I also save the >>> member. Is there another way to avoid this? >>> >>> Any recommended practice for this? >>> >>> Next level question: What if it gets composite? it is... a Group has >>> other Groups as members :) >>> >>> >>> Regards! >>> >>> Esteban A. Maringolo >>> >>> >> >> > >

Aug. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Group and member with Voyage

by Esteban A. Maringolo

Hi James, Thanks for your response. You are right, the Pattern is quite common, if not ubiquous in all systems. My particular question is related with Voyage+MongoDB, and also could apply to Magritte (given the fact Voyage "inherits" its descriptions model). I sucessfully implemented this pattern with ORMs using an intermediary table for the relation, or even reifying the relation as a first class object. I also used the #select: technique to avoid duplication of "responsibility" and caching at one side of the relation. But I always did it "in memory" with no mapping et all, just plain old smalltalk objects (POSO?) and using ORM solutions. What I need to know now is: 1) How to do this with voyage+MongoDB 2) I want to have a two way relation, it is both members and groups have a collection (members know their groups and viceversa). This requires additional maintenance, but with a higher performance, and doesn't require me to load all groups if I'm just materializing one member. Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo 2013/8/30 James Foster <Smalltalk(a)jgfoster.net>: > Hi Esteban, > > What you have described is quite common and there are a variety of ways of designing this sort of object model. If you were dealing with a relational database, then you would have a Group table, a Member table, and a Membership table. The Membership table would have one row for each member/group pair and the member ID and group ID would be the primary columns (perhaps with other things like date joined, date expired, etc.). With an index on the member ID and group ID, one could quickly find all the groups for a member and all the members for a group, and each piece of data would exist in only one place ("normalized"). One could take a similar approach with objects, having three collections containing Groups, Members, and Memberships respectively. You could have an accessor in Group that returned members based on a select from the Memberships collection and an accessor in Member that returned groups based on a select from the Memberships collection. > > Alternatively, if you wanted to avoid the #'select:' call in one or both lookups, you can cache the respective subcollections in Group and/or Member and drop the Memberships collection. If you cache in only one place (e.g., each Group has a collection of Members), then you can add a method in Member that does a #'select:' of Groups where a Group has the Member. If you cache in both places then your getters/setters in each can update the other (with the understanding that you are duplicating data to get performance efficiency). > > Again, this problem is very common. Consider students in classes, persons with addresses, persons with hobbies, etc. Your choices are basically (1) three collections, no duplicates, select for both queries; (2) two collections, no duplicates, cache for one query, select for the other query; and (3) two collections, caches for each query. Which is preferable depends on your typical sizes and lookup patterns. If performance is not an issue, then start with whatever is simplest for you to code. I lean toward the three collections with the lookup penalty (GemStone's ability to index collections makes this approach very efficient), but if most of your lookups are from one side or the other and scanning the full collection is slow, then cache in one or both places. > > If you have a composite, the analysis is similar since Smalltalk does not require static typing of variables. You just need to take care that your accessors can give back the expected objects. > > James > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Let's say I have a class Group and a class Member. >> >> aGroup has many members. >> and aMember can belong to many groups. >> >> What is the "proper" voyageDescription for those one to many relations? >> >> Should I do something extra? >> >> Everytime I add a member to the group, both the member and the group >> get their references updated. >> Now when I add a member to a group and save it, I also save the >> member. Is there another way to avoid this? >> >> Any recommended practice for this? >> >> Next level question: What if it gets composite? it is... a Group has >> other Groups as members :) >> >> >> Regards! >> >> Esteban A. Maringolo >> >> > >

Aug. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Group and member with Voyage

by James Foster

Hi Esteban, What you have described is quite common and there are a variety of ways of designing this sort of object model. If you were dealing with a relational database, then you would have a Group table, a Member table, and a Membership table. The Membership table would have one row for each member/group pair and the member ID and group ID would be the primary columns (perhaps with other things like date joined, date expired, etc.). With an index on the member ID and group ID, one could quickly find all the groups for a member and all the members for a group, and each piece of data would exist in only one place ("normalized"). One could take a similar approach with objects, having three collections containing Groups, Members, and Memberships respectively. You could have an accessor in Group that returned members based on a select from the Memberships collection and an accessor in Member that returned groups based on a select from the Memberships collection. Alternatively, if you wanted to avoid the #'select:' call in one or both lookups, you can cache the respective subcollections in Group and/or Member and drop the Memberships collection. If you cache in only one place (e.g., each Group has a collection of Members), then you can add a method in Member that does a #'select:' of Groups where a Group has the Member. If you cache in both places then your getters/setters in each can update the other (with the understanding that you are duplicating data to get performance efficiency). Again, this problem is very common. Consider students in classes, persons with addresses, persons with hobbies, etc. Your choices are basically (1) three collections, no duplicates, select for both queries; (2) two collections, no duplicates, cache for one query, select for the other query; and (3) two collections, caches for each query. Which is preferable depends on your typical sizes and lookup patterns. If performance is not an issue, then start with whatever is simplest for you to code. I lean toward the three collections with the lookup penalty (GemStone's ability to index collections makes this approach very efficient), but if most of your lookups are from one side or the other and scanning the full collection is slow, then cache in one or both places. If you have a composite, the analysis is similar since Smalltalk does not require static typing of variables. You just need to take care that your accessors can give back the expected objects. James On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Let's say I have a class Group and a class Member. > > aGroup has many members. > and aMember can belong to many groups. > > What is the "proper" voyageDescription for those one to many relations? > > Should I do something extra? > > Everytime I add a member to the group, both the member and the group > get their references updated. > Now when I add a member to a group and save it, I also save the > member. Is there another way to avoid this? > > Any recommended practice for this? > > Next level question: What if it gets composite? it is... a Group has > other Groups as members :) > > > Regards! > > Esteban A. Maringolo > >

Aug. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Benchmark

by Esteban Lorenzano

yes, it was just a proof of concept, waiting for their own dedicated machine(s) On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:03 PM, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: > However benchmark on the CI are not on a dedicated machine so it is not very reliable .... > > > 2013/8/30 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> > That you just need to run it from the command line which is not related to the benchmark project. > Currently it seems like the ci has some troubles, so I cannot get to the configuration either. > > > On 2013-08-30, at 17:25, Natalia Moskovchuk <natalia.moskovchuk(a)unikernel.net> wrote: > > > Thanks. I already saw this video. I cann't see configuration on > > https://ci.inria.fr/rmod/job/FullTextSearch/configure . Can you share it? > >

Aug. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Benchmark

by ClÃ©ment Bera

However benchmark on the CI are not on a dedicated machine so it is not very reliable .... 2013/8/30 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> > That you just need to run it from the command line which is not related to > the benchmark project. > Currently it seems like the ci has some troubles, so I cannot get to the > configuration either. > > > On 2013-08-30, at 17:25, Natalia Moskovchuk < > natalia.moskovchuk(a)unikernel.net> wrote: > > > Thanks. I already saw this video. I cann't see configuration on > > https://ci.inria.fr/rmod/job/FullTextSearch/configure . Can you share > it? > >

Aug. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Benchmark

by Camillo Bruni

That you just need to run it from the command line which is not related to the benchmark project. Currently it seems like the ci has some troubles, so I cannot get to the configuration either. On 2013-08-30, at 17:25, Natalia Moskovchuk <natalia.moskovchuk(a)unikernel.net> wrote: > Thanks. I already saw this video. I cann't see configuration on > https://ci.inria.fr/rmod/job/FullTextSearch/configure . Can you share it?

Aug. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] voyage/mongo randomly wrong OIDs

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, One idea (not sure if it will work) You can take Time primUTCMicrosecondsClock when system start, then increase it sequentially. most probably that will ensure uniqueness while providing fast ids. but of course, that depends, you need to check in your system. I'm thinking on provide different ID generators for Voyage, and let people plug what is more convenient for them. (all of this happens because, unlike other db drivers, mongo does not answer the inserted id :( ) Esteban On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Sabine KnÃ¶fel <sabine.knoefel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So, I will wait and till then, use the solution of Jan. > Thank you, Jan for the file in. > Sabine > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/voyage-mongo-randomly-wrong-OIDs-tp4705396p4705821.ht… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Aug. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] voyage/mongo randomly wrong OIDs

by Sabine KnÃ¶fel

So, I will wait and till then, use the solution of Jan. Thank you, Jan for the file in. Sabine -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/voyage-mongo-randomly-wrong-OIDs-tp4705396p4705821.ht… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Aug. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] voyage/mongo randomly wrong OIDs

by Esteban Lorenzano

yes, is a conversation geeky enough to be fun :) unix: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharovm/blob/master/platforms/unix/plugins… mac: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharovm/blob/master/platforms/iOS/plugins/… win: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharovm/blob/master/platforms/win32/plugin… as you can see... it much depends on the platform. I would like to unify that (I'm doing it slooooowly, with certain plugins... but just when I have time, which is not very frequent :), and also it is not always possible) Esteban On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 30 Aug 2013, at 16:54, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 30, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)beta9.be> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 30 Aug 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 16:51, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> hi >>>>>> >>>>>> well... I've never been happy on using the UUID generator for my keys, but is the fastest option I found. >>>>>> There are, of course, alternatives: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Using your own number generator (sequential, or whatever). Problem with that is that is image based, then you need a persistence strategy... then you are slow. >>>>>> 2) then you can use your own procedure in mongo... with same problem than (1) >>>>>> 3) you could use timestamp. but TimeStamps are slow :( >>>>>> >>>>>> anyway... I open to ideas :) >>>>>> >>>>>> in the mean time, you can check if your UUID generator is using the primitive or not. In you are not, you have more possibilities of having a collision. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the Smalltalk code (type 4 UUID) is just a random number that is computed in a complex way. >>>>> >>>>> What does the primitive actually do ? Is it different ? >>>> >>>> the primitive uses the clock ticks to produce an UUID... you shouldn't have repeated numbers that way... but well, it depends on the platform implementation also. >>> >>> I don't like plugins because it is some much harder for everyone to look at the implementation, while everybody thinks some magic happens there, and often the truth is quite disappointing. >>> >>> Maybe the resolution of #primUTCMicrosecondsClock is not high enough ? >> >> I tried... not enough :( > > I understand: the clock is not fast enough for the request rate. But then what is there against some counter as part of a UUID ? > > Sorry for the discussion, I find it an interesting subject. I'll have to read a bit about UUIDs. Can anyone point to the plugin implementation code ? > >>>>>> Esteban >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Sabine KnÃ¶fel <sabine.knoefel(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Esteban, All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was proceeding to seach for the reason of the problem I described >>>>>>> yesterday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I added some debugging code into VOMongoSerializer>>ensurePersisted: and the >>>>>>> problem I described, did NOT occur. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That made the whole process slower...and I had an idea.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was looking into >>UUIDGenerator default makeSeed. >>>>>>> Then I tried the following code: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> |theOld theNew| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 100000000 timesRepeat: [ >>>>>>> theNew := UUIDGenerator default makeSeed. >>>>>>> theNew = theOld ifTrue: [self halt]. >>>>>>> theOld := theNew] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The debugger came up! Doesn't that mean that, if the code is run very fast, >>>>>>> there are double OIDs generated?! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my case, the objects for country and currency are very lightweight and >>>>>>> so, they are created very fast. Also, the error occured much more often >>>>>>> within my fast production EC2 instance as at my (old and slow) development >>>>>>> pc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Important: I work with windows and so >>makeUnixSeed returns nil... :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is your opinion about that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sabine >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/voyage-mongo-randomly-wrong-OIDs-tp4705396p4705603.ht… >>>>>>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

Aug. 30, 2013