Re: Google App Engine
Miguel Arroz wrote: FYI: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/ whatisgoogleappengine.html I bet Mike can't write an adaptor for the Datastore in a weekend... ;) He can't, he's too busy writing is own operating system: MikeOS 1.3.0 Released http://mikeos.berlios.de/ ;-) -- Francis Labrie Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, Quebec, Canada ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google App Engine
On Apr 8, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Robert Walker wrote: I don't know if it would be possible to integrate EOF and such a data store, as EOF is very tight to the relational model, without doing some heavy trickery Speaking of that, why do we continue the Cargo Cult of the relational database? Isn't it about time to move past them, and begin moving to persistent storage that makes sense in the modern age of objects? That's all I'll say on the subject. I'm not trying to start a long discussion that will all end in tears. I looked into Object Databases a while back, but walked away due to cost, performance and other concerns. That was a while ago, quite a while. Things like this might be interesting: http://www.bluestream.com/products/streamstore20 Chuck On Apr 8, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! Of course I was! :) I don't know if it would be possible to integrate EOF and such a data store, as EOF is very tight to the relational model, without doing some heavy trickery (ie, bugs, instability, limitations, etc). And there's also the problem of not being able to access it outside of the python sandbox. But being able to do queries against the google infrastructure is very very interesting, specially considering my permanent performance concerns with traditional DBs... Interesting note, they also use OL to handle concurrency. I hope their implementation actually works! :) Yours Miguel Arroz On 2008/04/08, at 16:54, Mike Schrag wrote: . but then i think you were only semi-serious ;) On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: I actually looked at this ... I'm not sure if you can access the datastore outside of the python API's running in the cluster. Amazon's is a possibility also, but the query capability is very limited, and joins would have to be implemented inside the adaptor. Google's at least appears to expose a SQL-like API, though I don't know how extensive it is. ms On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! FYI: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/whatisgoogleappengine.html I bet Mike can't write an adaptor for the Datastore in a weekend... ;) Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag%40mdimension.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag%40mdimension.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/arroz%40guiamac.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/robert.walker%40bennettig.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Google App Engine
Hi! FYI: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/whatisgoogleappengine.html I bet Mike can't write an adaptor for the Datastore in a weekend... ;) Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google App Engine
I actually looked at this ... I'm not sure if you can access the datastore outside of the python API's running in the cluster. Amazon's is a possibility also, but the query capability is very limited, and joins would have to be implemented inside the adaptor. Google's at least appears to expose a SQL-like API, though I don't know how extensive it is. ms On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! FYI: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/whatisgoogleappengine.html I bet Mike can't write an adaptor for the Datastore in a weekend... ;) Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag%40mdimension.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google App Engine
. but then i think you were only semi-serious ;) On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: I actually looked at this ... I'm not sure if you can access the datastore outside of the python API's running in the cluster. Amazon's is a possibility also, but the query capability is very limited, and joins would have to be implemented inside the adaptor. Google's at least appears to expose a SQL-like API, though I don't know how extensive it is. ms On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! FYI: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/whatisgoogleappengine.html I bet Mike can't write an adaptor for the Datastore in a weekend... ;) Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag%40mdimension.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag%40mdimension.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google App Engine
I don't know if it would be possible to integrate EOF and such a data store, as EOF is very tight to the relational model, without doing some heavy trickery Speaking of that, why do we continue the Cargo Cult of the relational database? Isn't it about time to move past them, and begin moving to persistent storage that makes sense in the modern age of objects? That's all I'll say on the subject. I'm not trying to start a long discussion that will all end in tears. On Apr 8, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! Of course I was! :) I don't know if it would be possible to integrate EOF and such a data store, as EOF is very tight to the relational model, without doing some heavy trickery (ie, bugs, instability, limitations, etc). And there's also the problem of not being able to access it outside of the python sandbox. But being able to do queries against the google infrastructure is very very interesting, specially considering my permanent performance concerns with traditional DBs... Interesting note, they also use OL to handle concurrency. I hope their implementation actually works! :) Yours Miguel Arroz On 2008/04/08, at 16:54, Mike Schrag wrote: . but then i think you were only semi-serious ;) On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: I actually looked at this ... I'm not sure if you can access the datastore outside of the python API's running in the cluster. Amazon's is a possibility also, but the query capability is very limited, and joins would have to be implemented inside the adaptor. Google's at least appears to expose a SQL-like API, though I don't know how extensive it is. ms On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! FYI: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/ whatisgoogleappengine.html I bet Mike can't write an adaptor for the Datastore in a weekend... ;) Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag% 40mdimension.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag% 40mdimension.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/arroz% 40guiamac.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/robert.walker% 40bennettig.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google App Engine
Hi! On 2008/04/08, at 17:12, Robert Walker wrote: Speaking of that, why do we continue the Cargo Cult of the relational database? Isn't it about time to move past them, and begin moving to persistent storage that makes sense in the modern age of objects? That's all I'll say on the subject. I'm not trying to start a long discussion that will all end in tears. I do agree, I hate relational DBs. The problem is that I still didn't find any other persistent store that: 1) Can scale and handle high load (in a real environment, not just on the spec sheet); 2) Is affordable/free; 3) Integrates well with powerful frameworks like WO. When something comes up that meets these criteria, I will move on the first day. I feel the same as you, it's incredible how little databases have evolved in the last decades. But if making a good alternative was easy, we would have lots of them around, I guess. Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google App Engine
I do agree, I hate relational DBs. The problem is that I still didn't find any other persistent store that: 1) Can scale and handle high load (in a real environment, not just on the spec sheet); 2) Is affordable/free; 3) Integrates well with powerful frameworks like WO. http://www.intersystems.com/cache/index.html I don't yet know a lot about this, but from reading their feature list, systems like this may be in our near future. Feature and Benefits: http://www.intersystems.com/cache/technology/fb/fb_02.html On Apr 8, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! On 2008/04/08, at 17:12, Robert Walker wrote: Speaking of that, why do we continue the Cargo Cult of the relational database? Isn't it about time to move past them, and begin moving to persistent storage that makes sense in the modern age of objects? That's all I'll say on the subject. I'm not trying to start a long discussion that will all end in tears. I do agree, I hate relational DBs. The problem is that I still didn't find any other persistent store that: 1) Can scale and handle high load (in a real environment, not just on the spec sheet); 2) Is affordable/free; 3) Integrates well with powerful frameworks like WO. When something comes up that meets these criteria, I will move on the first day. I feel the same as you, it's incredible how little databases have evolved in the last decades. But if making a good alternative was easy, we would have lots of them around, I guess. Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com Robert Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google App Engine
One of our suppliers used this DB and it was, to use a technical term, a bag of crap. That was a few years back now, so it may have moved on a bit, but it's one of those things filed under avoid at all costs in my brain. To me relational = reliable. It's a bit like EOF vs Ruby on Rails. Yeah, there's stacks of whizzy new bits of kit out there, but at the end of the day would you lay your life on something that's got just a few months under it's belt, or stick with something that's been running heavily used systems for years ? Simon On 8 Apr 2008, at 17:55, Robert Walker wrote: http://www.intersystems.com/cache/index.html I don't yet know a lot about this, but from reading their feature list, systems like this may be in our near future. Feature and Benefits:http://www.intersystems.com/cache/technology/fb/fb_02.html On Apr 8, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! On 2008/04/08, at 17:12, Robert Walker wrote: Speaking of that, why do we continue the Cargo Cult of the relational database? Isn't it about time to move past them, and begin moving to persistent storage that makes sense in the modern age of objects? That's all I'll say on the subject. I'm not trying to start a long discussion that will all end in tears. I do agree, I hate relational DBs. The problem is that I still didn't find any other persistent store that: 1) Can scale and handle high load (in a real environment, not just on the spec sheet); 2) Is affordable/free; 3) Integrates well with powerful frameworks like WO. When something comes up that meets these criteria, I will move on the first day. I feel the same as you, it's incredible how little databases have evolved in the last decades. But if making a good alternative was easy, we would have lots of them around, I guess. Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google App Engine
One of our suppliers used this DB and it was, to use a technical term, a bag of crap. That was a few years back now, so it may have moved on a bit, but it's one of those things filed under avoid at all costs in my brain. Exactly why I made it very clear that I don't have any details on that database. I was merely suggesting that there is work being done in this area, and that I feel we will benefit from it sometime in the not-so-distant future. To me relational = reliable. It's a bit like EOF vs Ruby on Rails. Yeah, there's stacks of whizzy new bits of kit out there, but at the end of the day would you lay your life on something that's got just a few months under it's belt, or stick with something that's been running heavily used systems for years ? That's also the thinking that brings innovation to crawl. Sometimes that's necessary, and a very good thing. But, not everything must be absolutely bullet-proof stable. Plus there's nothing in either EOF or RoR that is inherently more stable or unstable. Poor, unstable code is as easy to write in WO as it is in RoR. At least in my experience anyway. It's interesting that you bring up the EOF vs Rails argument. If RoR was a completely unstable pile of crap, then its popularity would have faded long before now. There's some real innovation going on in that space. There's a lot of things to learn from looking at competing framework. I'm a big fan of EOF, but I'm also a big fan of RoR. I'll use the tool that best fits my requirements. Making blanket statements about a framework, based on hearsay, simply because it may compete with what you're using doesn't really do anyone any good. This is a trend that seems to be perpetual. I just try to step outside the arguments and take advantage of what each language and framework has to offer. My apologies, I will be quiet now. I didn't mean to start anything, but I want my point of view to be clear. On Apr 8, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Simon McLean wrote: One of our suppliers used this DB and it was, to use a technical term, a bag of crap. That was a few years back now, so it may have moved on a bit, but it's one of those things filed under avoid at all costs in my brain. To me relational = reliable. It's a bit like EOF vs Ruby on Rails. Yeah, there's stacks of whizzy new bits of kit out there, but at the end of the day would you lay your life on something that's got just a few months under it's belt, or stick with something that's been running heavily used systems for years ? Simon On 8 Apr 2008, at 17:55, Robert Walker wrote: http://www.intersystems.com/cache/index.html I don't yet know a lot about this, but from reading their feature list, systems like this may be in our near future. Feature and Benefits:http://www.intersystems.com/cache/technology/ fb/fb_02.html On Apr 8, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! On 2008/04/08, at 17:12, Robert Walker wrote: Speaking of that, why do we continue the Cargo Cult of the relational database? Isn't it about time to move past them, and begin moving to persistent storage that makes sense in the modern age of objects? That's all I'll say on the subject. I'm not trying to start a long discussion that will all end in tears. I do agree, I hate relational DBs. The problem is that I still didn't find any other persistent store that: 1) Can scale and handle high load (in a real environment, not just on the spec sheet); 2) Is affordable/free; 3) Integrates well with powerful frameworks like WO. When something comes up that meets these criteria, I will move on the first day. I feel the same as you, it's incredible how little databases have evolved in the last decades. But if making a good alternative was easy, we would have lots of them around, I guess. Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com Robert Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Google App Engine
To quote Chuck... From: Chuck Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 13 March 2008 9:37:05 AM Sounds suspiciously like I can't... ;-) On 09/04/2008, at 1:53 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: I actually looked at this ... I'm not sure if you can access the datastore outside of the python API's running in the cluster. Amazon's is a possibility also, but the query capability is very limited, and joins would have to be implemented inside the adaptor. Google's at least appears to expose a SQL-like API, though I don't know how extensive it is. ms On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! FYI: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/whatisgoogleappengine.html I bet Mike can't write an adaptor for the Datastore in a weekend... ;) with regards, -- Lachlan Deck ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
