3 ms·

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

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]

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]