dagss

32 ms·

391.
by dagss 4y ago
I do not see your point. Sometimes consistent mutations between modules is wanted. Monoliths lets you do it. Perhaps you discovered your module boundaries were wrong, you create a supermodule to encaspulate both to coordinate the joint tran
392.
by dagss 4y ago
For numerical computation compiled code is 10x-1000x faster; even without the GIL Python cannot compete without dropping to C/Fortran (which typically releases the GIL anyway)
393.
by dagss 4y ago
Assume you have two tables A and B on the same DB. They are sort of seen as unrelated. Suddenly a feature request requires that A and B are mutated together consistently. If it is in one service you just use a common DB transaction and get
394.
by dagss 4y ago
Micro-services is about partitioning based on functionality and features -- so I think more often than not, 99% of the microservices use 10% of the storage and 1 microservice use 90% of the storage, and you're back to solving the probl
395.
by dagss 4y ago
The way you use functions on Amazon sounds like it could be a monolithic development style to me. Independent functions is still a monolith if they use the same database (IMO). It's micro-services if you start to use different database
396.
by dagss 4y ago
How about, you can have microservices back when the engineers/architects care in the slightest about defining domains between services and having a direction or overall idea for how they communicate. It's easy to get to a point
397.
by dagss 4y ago
Re immutability -- I would say a well written backend in any language would (probably?) throw away the entire state between each request being handled. It's possible to introduce state, sure, but why and how does that happen? For ver
398.
by dagss 4y ago
At the boundaries are events. "User wanted to change time of meeting". Once you have recorded events, figuring out what side-effects (often causing new events in other systems) should be triggered from the set of all events input
399.
by dagss 4y ago
First 3 chars of my username, add "seljebotn", at the email service Google provides.
400.
by dagss 4y ago
Insert-only: Sorry bad wording. "Focus on inserting events (which boils down to only inserting into tables, never updating existing rows)" A database can of course never know that it is "events" you are inserting. -- Agg
401.
by dagss 4y ago
This way of thinking is the future.. and it should IMO also be the future of transactional business logic ("backend dev") programming. If there was a DB that got popular that focused on the following usecase and covered it really
402.
by dagss 5y ago
"..you misunderstand..." Hey, I even quoted the interpretation you explain to me here further down in the post I wrote. What I was arguing about was whether the specific phrase "change the value of zero" makes sense to d
403.
by dagss 5y ago
There is no argument here -- why would everything cost $1000 extra? You just said "then". Where is the argument? So if I earn $500 now, and buy 500 lollipops at $1 each. If everyone gets $1000 as UBI, then those 500 lollipops will
404.
by dagss 5y ago
Look up "git wip", configure your editor to use it and it keeps an unintrusive 'second branch' in the background. https://atom.io/packages/git-wip "git-wip is a script that will manage Work In
405.
by dagss 5y ago
Well the parent talked about not joining across services. Then there are hard limits to how small you can make them. And what need to join with what is something that can change. So if you make services very small, and no joins across servi
406.
by dagss 5y ago
"just picked a bad service boundary" -- well that's the thing isn't it. If you always pick the right boundary up front, something that is perfect both now and also anticipates any kind of future crazy feature request --
407.
by dagss 5y ago
The article, if you read it, does not disagree with you. It is discussing an initiative someone took to attempt to create more positive scifi.
408.
by dagss 5y ago
In Microsoft SQL cross apply can be used for this in even more situations and with less repetition: select top(20) title, country, ... avg(gross_salary) as average_gross_salary, ... from emp
409.
by dagss 5y ago
That is orthogonal, NoSQL can be used as a relational DB too. SQL is one way to do a relational DB. Also what I describe is close to SQL if e.g. you declare a set of properties and property types for each "filetype". Relational is
410.
by dagss 5y ago
You would not have a "directory" in the sense you use the word (why would directory be required in a FILE system?) Instead a heap of files and you search for them using metadata (e.g. each file has an associated key value store th
411.
by dagss 5y ago
I think that is a strange use of the word "escape". You "escape" from something, in this context the query string. If parameters are not passed inside the query string then how can you say they are escaped? At least for
412.
by dagss 5y ago
Why "escape"? Just insert. Using SQL parameters.
413.
by dagss 5y ago
With an official readonly header to POST instead all middlewares and proxies would have automatic support and this can be adopted in months instead of years or decades...
414.
by dagss 5y ago
Many, many services (most of the internet?) has the backend sitting behind a proxy that would throw away the payload before it gets to the "apps". Granted they need to get support for QUERY too but at least it is more explicit the
415.
by dagss 5y ago
Clearly defined, but very inconvenient and makes it too easy to write buggy code that looks correct on surface.
416.
by dagss 5y ago
I would say this is another problem. If an external call to a web service is involved, then you can NEVER have an atomic call in the first place. One always needs to just have a state machine to navigate these cases. Even with a monolith, w
417.
by dagss 5y ago
The need to do a cross-service atomic operation indicates that you chose the wrong service boundaries in your architecture. And, since it's microservices, it's near impossible to refactor it, while it could have been a simple thin
418.
by dagss 5y ago
In some companies teams are not divided in a way that follow technical faultlines, but rather after "product owners" so that the only valid divison lines are exteral facing superficial aspects. E.g. think a car company where you
419.
by dagss 5y ago
Except when the team division in the company does not map to any natural service API boundaries, yet it is insisted that each "team" own their services. Then microservices increase organizational complexity too. Suddenly product o
420.
by dagss 5y ago
It is much worse than this this was just the start of a very long list of awful problems (my team tried to live with Cosmos for a couple of years too,luckily got approved a port to another DB and now we are not looking back). The worst thi

More ›