3 ms·

MagLev 1.0 Released

65 points by DanielRibeiro 15y ago

chrisledet 15y ago
Too bad 1.9 isn't supported yet.
sant0sk1 15y ago
MagLev appears to be the holy grail for Ruby object persistence. Automatic transactional persistence that is shared across VMs sounds pretty amazing to me. Yet the dev community seems to be only marginally interested in the project. Why is this? Because it's not 100% free? Because it's too good to be true? Because it's not 1.9?
- gnufied 15y ago
  Because: * A large portion of Ruby community uses - Ruby for scripting. Such as puppet, chef, command line tools etcetra. This is also why jRuby hasn't picked among many rubyists as much as it should. * If maglev wants to succeed, the initial documentation has to be done by Maglev developers, since it brings very different paradigm of writing web/server side applications. * Library alternatives has to be documented. C extensions?
  - johnbender 15y ago
    I'd add that the Ruby community has been using the "it's (good|fast) enough" argument for so long with, particularly where Rails is concerned, that any performance benefits are mostly useless as selling point.
- spooneybarger 15y ago
  I've used Gemstone's OODB. It really isn't too good to be true. I'd look to 'not 100% free', not '1.9', no easy migration path to other data storage platforms ( switching off gemstone wouldnt be like switching from MySQL to PgSQL ) and various other concerns of that sort. I'm am quite interested to hear from people who use Ruby but aren't interested in Maglev as to why they aren't interested.
  - petercooper 15y ago
    No 1.9. Believe it or not, a large number of people have moved across. I've been on it 'full time' for almost 2 years. Other than that, though, it adds a lot of new stuff to learn. I'm sure it'll be worth learning but for better or worse, it's easier to let other people play with the "1.0" and learn the lessons so that you can then rely more upon the "1.1" or whatever.
    - halostatue 15y ago
      This. I maintain a few gems and I'm trying to get my testing up to speed and make everything 1.9 compatible sooner rather than later. I'm not yet at the point where I'm going to cut off users of 1.8.7, but by time 2.0 comes out (February 2013), I will not be officially supporting 1.8.7 on any interpreter.
  - jvoorhis 15y ago
    Lack of documentation for busy people, and learning curve for a novel persistence engine. Many of us know how to scale MySQL, Postgres, etc. but my team has no operational knowledge for Gemstone. That said, the Gemstone/S docs are quite good.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
spooneybarger 15y ago
I've used Gemstone/S with Smalltalk in a production environment and loved what it did for us in terms of productivity. Not having to worry about persistence is awesome. All you have to worry about is getting your data out into other formats if you need to. That for me is a much easier problem to solve than mapping OO concepts to a Relational persistence model. The GLASS environment we were using is close Maglev. Its just swapping Smalltalk for Ruby. For the vast majority of sites that would consider using Maglev, scaling shouldn't be an issue and the Gemstone OODB at that level is very easy to administer and maintain once you learn a few basic concepts. If you want to get a strong understanding of how the OODB works, I strongly suggest you check out James Foster's lengthy 2 part presentation from Smalltalks 2009. http://gemstonesoup.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/james-fosters-introduction-to-gemstone-videos/ http://gemstonesoup.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/james-fosters-i... If anyone has any questions about working with the Gemstone OODB, I'd be happy to have a conversation with you, my email address is in the contact info for my account.

65 points by DanielRibeiro 15y ago

Too bad 1.9 isn't supported yet.

MagLev appears to be the holy grail for Ruby object persistence. Automatic transactional persistence that is shared across VMs sounds pretty amazing to me. Yet the dev community seems to be only marginally interested in the project. Why is this? Because it's not 100% free? Because it's too good to be true? Because it's not 1.9?

gnufied 15y ago
Because: * A large portion of Ruby community uses - Ruby for scripting. Such as puppet, chef, command line tools etcetra. This is also why jRuby hasn't picked among many rubyists as much as it should. * If maglev wants to succeed, the initial documentation has to be done by Maglev developers, since it brings very different paradigm of writing web/server side applications. * Library alternatives has to be documented. C extensions?
- johnbender 15y ago
  I'd add that the Ruby community has been using the "it's (good|fast) enough" argument for so long with, particularly where Rails is concerned, that any performance benefits are mostly useless as selling point.
spooneybarger 15y ago
I've used Gemstone's OODB. It really isn't too good to be true. I'd look to 'not 100% free', not '1.9', no easy migration path to other data storage platforms ( switching off gemstone wouldnt be like switching from MySQL to PgSQL ) and various other concerns of that sort. I'm am quite interested to hear from people who use Ruby but aren't interested in Maglev as to why they aren't interested.
- petercooper 15y ago
  No 1.9. Believe it or not, a large number of people have moved across. I've been on it 'full time' for almost 2 years. Other than that, though, it adds a lot of new stuff to learn. I'm sure it'll be worth learning but for better or worse, it's easier to let other people play with the "1.0" and learn the lessons so that you can then rely more upon the "1.1" or whatever.
  - halostatue 15y ago
    This. I maintain a few gems and I'm trying to get my testing up to speed and make everything 1.9 compatible sooner rather than later. I'm not yet at the point where I'm going to cut off users of 1.8.7, but by time 2.0 comes out (February 2013), I will not be officially supporting 1.8.7 on any interpreter.
- jvoorhis 15y ago
  Lack of documentation for busy people, and learning curve for a novel persistence engine. Many of us know how to scale MySQL, Postgres, etc. but my team has no operational knowledge for Gemstone. That said, the Gemstone/S docs are quite good.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

spooneybarger 15y ago

I've used Gemstone/S with Smalltalk in a production environment and loved what it did for us in terms of productivity. Not having to worry about persistence is awesome. All you have to worry about is getting your data out into other formats if you need to. That for me is a much easier problem to solve than mapping OO concepts to a Relational persistence model. The GLASS environment we were using is close Maglev. Its just swapping Smalltalk for Ruby. For the vast majority of sites that would consider using Maglev, scaling shouldn't be an issue and the Gemstone OODB at that level is very easy to administer and maintain once you learn a few basic concepts. If you want to get a strong understanding of how the OODB works, I strongly suggest you check out James Foster's lengthy 2 part presentation from Smalltalks 2009. http://gemstonesoup.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/james-fosters-introduction-to-gemstone-videos/ http://gemstonesoup.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/james-fosters-i... If anyone has any questions about working with the Gemstone OODB, I'd be happy to have a conversation with you, my email address is in the contact info for my account.