Re: Lion and WO
Right, on Lion client. The big problem is the change in the way the postgres user is set up. Evidently, it existed as 'postgres' on older versions, but it is now '_postgres' with no shell. Ramsey On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:51 PM, Johan Henselmans wrote: > > Op 7 aug. 2011, om 06:37 heeft Ramsey Gurley het volgende geschreven: > >> Not entirely fine… >> >> Just in case anyone is trying to install Postgres on a clean install of >> Lion, you'll hit a snag at the very end of the installer that prevents the >> creation of the initial database and installation of the apps in >> /Applications. Until the Postgres people fix this in their install script, >> you'll need to: >> >> sudo dscl . -append /Users/_postgres RecordName postgres >> sudo dscl . -append /Groups/_postgres RecordName postgres >> sudo dscl . -change /Users/_postgres UserShell /usr/bin/false /bin/bash >> > > In Lion Server postgresql is directly available, instead of Mysql. I do not > know about Lion Client, I upgrade my MacBookPro to Lion, and my macports > postgresql just continued to run. I would go the macports route anyway. > >> The first two commands will alias the underscore username with a >> username/group the install script expects. The third line is necessary to su >> to the postgres user. It seems all three are required prior to running the >> installer in order to get it to complete normally. >> >> Ramsey >> >> On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Andy 'Dru' Satori wrote: >> >>> PostgreSQL is just fine in lion >>> >>> Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad >>> >>> On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: >>> Postgresql? On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote: > The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - > probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev > right now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: > >> yes, long ago .. works fine. >> >> On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: >> >>> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? >>> >>> On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. ___ 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk >>> ___ >>> 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%40pobox.com >>> >>> This email sent to msch...@pobox.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/lists%40thetimmy.com >> >> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/rgurley%40smarthealth.com > > This email sent to rgur...@smarthealth.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/dru%40druware.com This email sent to d...@druware.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/mailm
Re: Lion and WO
Op 7 aug. 2011, om 06:37 heeft Ramsey Gurley het volgende geschreven: > Not entirely fine… > > Just in case anyone is trying to install Postgres on a clean install of Lion, > you'll hit a snag at the very end of the installer that prevents the creation > of the initial database and installation of the apps in /Applications. Until > the Postgres people fix this in their install script, you'll need to: > > sudo dscl . -append /Users/_postgres RecordName postgres > sudo dscl . -append /Groups/_postgres RecordName postgres > sudo dscl . -change /Users/_postgres UserShell /usr/bin/false /bin/bash > In Lion Server postgresql is directly available, instead of Mysql. I do not know about Lion Client, I upgrade my MacBookPro to Lion, and my macports postgresql just continued to run. I would go the macports route anyway. > The first two commands will alias the underscore username with a > username/group the install script expects. The third line is necessary to su > to the postgres user. It seems all three are required prior to running the > installer in order to get it to complete normally. > > Ramsey > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Andy 'Dru' Satori wrote: > >> PostgreSQL is just fine in lion >> >> Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad >> >> On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: >> >>> Postgresql? >>> >>> On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote: >>> The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev right now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. Tim Worman UCLA GSE&IS On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: > yes, long ago .. works fine. > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: > >> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? >> >> On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: >>> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >>> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. >>> Apache WO adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not >>> pre-installed, so just start any Java process (a simple call to >>> /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will ask you if you want to install >>> Java. If you say so, it will download Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install >>> it. ___ >>> 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk >>> >>> This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk >>> >> ___ >> 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%40pobox.com >> >> This email sent to msch...@pobox.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/lists%40thetimmy.com > > This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/rgurley%40smarthealth.com This email sent to rgur...@smarthealth.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/dru%40druware.com >>> >>> This email sent to d...@druware.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/ramseygurley%40gmail.com >> >> This email sent to ramseygur...@gmail.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/we
Re: Lion and WO
Not entirely fine… Just in case anyone is trying to install Postgres on a clean install of Lion, you'll hit a snag at the very end of the installer that prevents the creation of the initial database and installation of the apps in /Applications. Until the Postgres people fix this in their install script, you'll need to: sudo dscl . -append /Users/_postgres RecordName postgres sudo dscl . -append /Groups/_postgres RecordName postgres sudo dscl . -change /Users/_postgres UserShell /usr/bin/false /bin/bash The first two commands will alias the underscore username with a username/group the install script expects. The third line is necessary to su to the postgres user. It seems all three are required prior to running the installer in order to get it to complete normally. Ramsey On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Andy 'Dru' Satori wrote: > PostgreSQL is just fine in lion > > Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: > >> Postgresql? >> >> On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote: >> >>> The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - >>> probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev >>> right now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. >>> >>> Tim Worman >>> UCLA GSE&IS >>> >>> >>> On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: >>> yes, long ago .. works fine. On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: > what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? > > On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: >> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache >> WO adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so >> just start any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and >> Finder will ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will >> download Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. >> ___ >> 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk >> >> This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk >> > ___ > 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%40pobox.com > > This email sent to msch...@pobox.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/lists%40thetimmy.com This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/rgurley%40smarthealth.com >>> >>> This email sent to rgur...@smarthealth.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/dru%40druware.com >> >> This email sent to d...@druware.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/ramseygurley%40gmail.com > > This email sent to ramseygur...@gmail.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote: > To do it correctly it would be a property (I think) as it assumes you've used > MySQLs default of case-insensitiveness which is probably true for most people > but perhaps not all. Well, when you put it that way, yeah, you're both right (^_^) > > I didn't get around to contributing it last year after contributing the > H2Plugin as others like Ramsey were working on the MySQL plugin at the time. > I think I mentioned at the time what I'd done which was using the 'binary' > keyword for case-sensitive (both for where clauses and sort orderings) and > plain old like clauses for insensitive (without the UPPER) - but it was > obviously missed along the way. > > I've now taken my MySQLExpression class, tied it in optionally, and sent a > pull request from a github topic branch for others to review and make use of > and _test_. > > I've not had opportunity to use WO over the last 16 months :-/ but the source > for the plugin I was using was lying around awaiting use :). > > Lachlan Deck > lachlan.d...@gmail.com > > On 30/07/2011, at 12:41 AM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: > >> I don't think it would be a property. That would just be the correct >> behavior. I wasn't aware of such syntax when I wrote the initial MySQL >> plugin for wonder, or I would have certainly included this. I dug through >> the manual trying to solve this problem but never found the answer. >> >> I don't use MySQL anymore tho, so if you want it fixed, submit a patch/pull >> request. >> >> Ramsey >> >> On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Johann Werner wrote: >> >>> >>> Am 29.07.2011 um 12:54 schrieb Lachlan Deck: >>> What are the replication possibilities these days for dbs such as Postgres et al? Part of the success of MySQL I gather is having this support. We unfortunately use MySQL where I'm working, and it certainly struggles for certain things. One of the things that kills mysql as well is refactoring on large tables. e.g., adding columns causing a full table copy etc. This has been fixed apparently in 5.5. So far as poor indexing usages, WO by default doesn't help for case-insensitive searches by its usage of "like UPPER(..)" which bypasses mysql indexes altogether. I don't know if more recent Wonder mysql adaptors help with this but I'd created a custom adaptor for mysql that essentially did the following: - for case-insensitive: ... a like 'Foo' - for case-sensitive: binary a like 'Foo' >>> >>> where is the commit for the current MySQL plugin and the corresponding >>> property to switch to the new behavior? ;-) >>> >>> Lachlan Deck lachlan.d...@gmail.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/ramseygurley%40gmail.com >>> >>> This email sent to ramseygur...@gmail.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
To do it correctly it would be a property (I think) as it assumes you've used MySQLs default of case-insensitiveness which is probably true for most people but perhaps not all. I didn't get around to contributing it last year after contributing the H2Plugin as others like Ramsey were working on the MySQL plugin at the time. I think I mentioned at the time what I'd done which was using the 'binary' keyword for case-sensitive (both for where clauses and sort orderings) and plain old like clauses for insensitive (without the UPPER) - but it was obviously missed along the way. I've now taken my MySQLExpression class, tied it in optionally, and sent a pull request from a github topic branch for others to review and make use of and _test_. I've not had opportunity to use WO over the last 16 months :-/ but the source for the plugin I was using was lying around awaiting use :). Lachlan Deck lachlan.d...@gmail.com On 30/07/2011, at 12:41 AM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: > I don't think it would be a property. That would just be the correct > behavior. I wasn't aware of such syntax when I wrote the initial MySQL > plugin for wonder, or I would have certainly included this. I dug through > the manual trying to solve this problem but never found the answer. > > I don't use MySQL anymore tho, so if you want it fixed, submit a patch/pull > request. > > Ramsey > > On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Johann Werner wrote: > >> >> Am 29.07.2011 um 12:54 schrieb Lachlan Deck: >> >>> What are the replication possibilities these days for dbs such as Postgres >>> et al? >>> Part of the success of MySQL I gather is having this support. >>> >>> We unfortunately use MySQL where I'm working, and it certainly struggles >>> for certain things. One of the things that kills mysql as well is >>> refactoring on large tables. e.g., adding columns causing a full table copy >>> etc. This has been fixed apparently in 5.5. >>> >>> So far as poor indexing usages, WO by default doesn't help for >>> case-insensitive searches by its usage of "like UPPER(..)" which bypasses >>> mysql indexes altogether. I don't know if more recent Wonder mysql adaptors >>> help with this but I'd created a custom adaptor for mysql that essentially >>> did the following: >>> - for case-insensitive: ... a like 'Foo' >>> - for case-sensitive: binary a like 'Foo' >> >> where is the commit for the current MySQL plugin and the corresponding >> property to switch to the new behavior? ;-) >> >> >>> >>> Lachlan Deck >>> lachlan.d...@gmail.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/ramseygurley%40gmail.com >> >> This email sent to ramseygur...@gmail.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
The changes in PostgreSQL 9 allow for "hot standby" databases, which are running and allow read-only access and can instantly become stand-alone masters if failover is needed. You can have many standby DBs being fed by one master with little performance degradation. The slaves are updated asynchronously, so this is an "eventually consistent" architecture; but in practice the slaves are updated almost instantly after the master, so it's pretty close. This built-in stuff is just one possible approach to implementing replication. There are many alternative, third party approaches that are widely used as well that have different characteristics; not better or worse, just different. John On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote: > Hi, > > Postgresql introduced built-in decent replication (master-slave) in > version 9. I never used it, by according to what I read about it, seems it > was done the way it should be. > ___ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
Hi, Postgresql introduced built-in decent replication (master-slave) in version 9. I never used it, by according to what I read about it, seems it was done the way it should be. Regards Miguel Arroz On 29/07/2011, at 03:54, Lachlan Deck wrote: > What are the replication possibilities these days for dbs such as Postgres et > al? > Part of the success of MySQL I gather is having this support. > > We unfortunately use MySQL where I'm working, and it certainly struggles for > certain things. One of the things that kills mysql as well is refactoring on > large tables. e.g., adding columns causing a full table copy etc. This has > been fixed apparently in 5.5. > > So far as poor indexing usages, WO by default doesn't help for > case-insensitive searches by its usage of "like UPPER(..)" which bypasses > mysql indexes altogether. I don't know if more recent Wonder mysql adaptors > help with this but I'd created a custom adaptor for mysql that essentially > did the following: > - for case-insensitive: ... a like 'Foo' > - for case-sensitive: binary a like 'Foo' > > Lachlan Deck > lachlan.d...@gmail.com > > On 28/07/2011, at 11:21 AM, Andy 'Dru' Satori wrote: > >> Beware PostgreSQL is faster than MySQL on the Mac, but the Mac is by far, >> the worst performing PostgreSQL host. The shared memory implementation is >> not well suited to the Mac, and when push comes to shove, pg exposes those >> weaknesses. >> >> PostgreSQL performs best on Linux. It works on OS x. If anyone is bored and >> wants toplay with a self contained user space PostgreSQL, I am in need of >> guinea pigs :) >> >> >> Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: >> >>> Cool! I actually used macports to build /install PostgreSQL today. >>> >>> Regards, Kieran. >>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>> >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Q wrote: >>> 650 million rows, 230Gig, growth rate of ~20 rows/sec, ~5 queries/sec MySQL = KaBoom! :( PostgreSQL = Mostly idle. MySQL is fine for simple queries and datasets that don't need lots of IO. For complex queries, or very large datasets MySQL's index handling and query planner are garbage, but that's not what MySQL was designed to be used for. On 28/07/2011, at 4:01 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall > over. Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory > allocations might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to > meet your expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I > got started with MySQL http://amzn.com/0596101716 - and, as I have said > before, the default out of the box settings in MySQL are dismally > constrained and probably designed for someone doing basic development on > a small memory PC. > > Other than the lack of deferred constraints, and associated workarounds, > I have found MySQL to be just fine in practice for tables in the 10 to 70 > million range, albeit, in production I usually try to have enough memory > (relatively inexpensive) to cover the entire DB. > > In any case, for the average WO developer, probably any one of the > popular dbs such as Frontbase, MySQL or PostgreSQL would be just fine. If > I was starting right now and had to spend the time becoming familiar with > the detailed ins/outs/ and configuration of a new database platform, I > would probably try PostgreSQL since it has deferred constraints and it is > open source. > > Cheers, Kieran > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew. >>> >>> What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it >>> to fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? >>> >>> Regards, Kieran. >>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: >>> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to replace the backend with something that scales well. OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. That comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development thoug
Re: Lion and WO
I don't think it would be a property. That would just be the correct behavior. I wasn't aware of such syntax when I wrote the initial MySQL plugin for wonder, or I would have certainly included this. I dug through the manual trying to solve this problem but never found the answer. I don't use MySQL anymore tho, so if you want it fixed, submit a patch/pull request. Ramsey On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Johann Werner wrote: > > Am 29.07.2011 um 12:54 schrieb Lachlan Deck: > >> What are the replication possibilities these days for dbs such as Postgres >> et al? >> Part of the success of MySQL I gather is having this support. >> >> We unfortunately use MySQL where I'm working, and it certainly struggles for >> certain things. One of the things that kills mysql as well is refactoring on >> large tables. e.g., adding columns causing a full table copy etc. This has >> been fixed apparently in 5.5. >> >> So far as poor indexing usages, WO by default doesn't help for >> case-insensitive searches by its usage of "like UPPER(..)" which bypasses >> mysql indexes altogether. I don't know if more recent Wonder mysql adaptors >> help with this but I'd created a custom adaptor for mysql that essentially >> did the following: >> - for case-insensitive: ... a like 'Foo' >> - for case-sensitive: binary a like 'Foo' > > where is the commit for the current MySQL plugin and the corresponding > property to switch to the new behavior? ;-) > > >> >> Lachlan Deck >> lachlan.d...@gmail.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/ramseygurley%40gmail.com > > This email sent to ramseygur...@gmail.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
Am 29.07.2011 um 12:54 schrieb Lachlan Deck: > What are the replication possibilities these days for dbs such as Postgres et > al? > Part of the success of MySQL I gather is having this support. > > We unfortunately use MySQL where I'm working, and it certainly struggles for > certain things. One of the things that kills mysql as well is refactoring on > large tables. e.g., adding columns causing a full table copy etc. This has > been fixed apparently in 5.5. > > So far as poor indexing usages, WO by default doesn't help for > case-insensitive searches by its usage of "like UPPER(..)" which bypasses > mysql indexes altogether. I don't know if more recent Wonder mysql adaptors > help with this but I'd created a custom adaptor for mysql that essentially > did the following: > - for case-insensitive: ... a like 'Foo' > - for case-sensitive: binary a like 'Foo' where is the commit for the current MySQL plugin and the corresponding property to switch to the new behavior? ;-) > > Lachlan Deck > lachlan.d...@gmail.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
What are the replication possibilities these days for dbs such as Postgres et al? Part of the success of MySQL I gather is having this support. We unfortunately use MySQL where I'm working, and it certainly struggles for certain things. One of the things that kills mysql as well is refactoring on large tables. e.g., adding columns causing a full table copy etc. This has been fixed apparently in 5.5. So far as poor indexing usages, WO by default doesn't help for case-insensitive searches by its usage of "like UPPER(..)" which bypasses mysql indexes altogether. I don't know if more recent Wonder mysql adaptors help with this but I'd created a custom adaptor for mysql that essentially did the following: - for case-insensitive: ... a like 'Foo' - for case-sensitive: binary a like 'Foo' Lachlan Deck lachlan.d...@gmail.com On 28/07/2011, at 11:21 AM, Andy 'Dru' Satori wrote: > Beware PostgreSQL is faster than MySQL on the Mac, but the Mac is by far, the > worst performing PostgreSQL host. The shared memory implementation is not > well suited to the Mac, and when push comes to shove, pg exposes those > weaknesses. > > PostgreSQL performs best on Linux. It works on OS x. If anyone is bored and > wants toplay with a self contained user space PostgreSQL, I am in need of > guinea pigs :) > > > Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > >> Cool! I actually used macports to build /install PostgreSQL today. >> >> Regards, Kieran. >> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Q wrote: >> >>> 650 million rows, 230Gig, growth rate of ~20 rows/sec, ~5 queries/sec >>> MySQL = KaBoom! :( >>> PostgreSQL = Mostly idle. >>> >>> MySQL is fine for simple queries and datasets that don't need lots of IO. >>> For complex queries, or very large datasets MySQL's index handling and >>> query planner are garbage, but that's not what MySQL was designed to be >>> used for. >>> >>> On 28/07/2011, at 4:01 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: >>> I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall over. Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory allocations might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to meet your expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I got started with MySQL http://amzn.com/0596101716 - and, as I have said before, the default out of the box settings in MySQL are dismally constrained and probably designed for someone doing basic development on a small memory PC. Other than the lack of deferred constraints, and associated workarounds, I have found MySQL to be just fine in practice for tables in the 10 to 70 million range, albeit, in production I usually try to have enough memory (relatively inexpensive) to cover the entire DB. In any case, for the average WO developer, probably any one of the popular dbs such as Frontbase, MySQL or PostgreSQL would be just fine. If I was starting right now and had to spend the time becoming familiar with the detailed ins/outs/ and configuration of a new database platform, I would probably try PostgreSQL since it has deferred constraints and it is open source. Cheers, Kieran On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > >> Hi Andrew. >> >> What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to >> fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? >> >> Regards, Kieran. >> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: >> >>> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past >>> it's core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else >>> very very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where >>> the front end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so >>> wedded to it's MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to >>> replace the backend with something that scales well. >>> >>> OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much >>> of this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' >>> functionality. That comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors >>> towards web development though. >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: >>> FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: > Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have > adopted a MySQL or comm
Re: MySQL was: Re: Lion and WO
Realistically, it is too late for WO to penetrate that space. The combination Oracle controlling Java, the current love affair with weak typed scripting platforms like node.js and academia's love of doing things the purist way instead of pragmatic means that academic trained programmers will forever more be I'll prepared for the real world.-- Sent from my HP TouchPadOn Jul 28, 2011 11:38 PM, Daniel Beatty wrote: Greetings James, I tend to agree, but there are somethings that MySQL had going for them. Most notably, they were able to get academia to tell just about every student to build a web page with PHP and MySQL. They even had them recommending the two of those in book after book. Something that would help us is the notion of the concepts of WO (all of the design patterns manifested by WO). At that point, the academics think that it is their idea and they spread it. Hopefully with a good database engine. Just a thought, Dan On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:28 AM, James Cicenia wrote: > All great wealth has a slight illegitimate origin. > > Cheers > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Q wrote: > >> If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here is the backstory: >> >> Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to appear was mSQL* (aka miniSQL), which wasn't technically open source, but it was free for non commercial use, and distributed as source. It was initially an sql query engine that ran on top of Postgres (back then Postgres wasn't an SQL DB), but later implemented its own backend storage. >> >> About a year, maybe a year and a half after mSQL's first release, MySQL appears, and it just happened to support all the same cli syntax, similar admin tools, etc as mSQL, it was basically a straight clone of mSQL but GPL and free. The origin of certain chunks of the source that were in the initial MySQL releases were also suspiciously similar to those found in mSQL. >> >> Initially neither product supported concurrent queries, however MySQL quickly introduced support for them using threads, which basically sucked for years, but is was a differentiator that took many years to be matched by mSQL (release early vs release when it actually works). At this time, mSQL was very stable, and MySQL basically sucked unless you used exactly the right config and feature set, but had the potential to do well once all the feature bugs were worked out (which took another 4 years or so). >> >> For a while the two products were pretty comparable in features (that worked), performance and popularity, but the non commercial use license and a growing MySQL feature set eventually spelled the demise of mSQL's popularity. MySQL went on to dominate the free sql database product space because it was basically the only choice that didn't cost money to use commercially, and support concurrent queries. The appearance of php in 1995 helped widen that gap as demand for small SQL databases grew, despite it supporting both products equally. >> At that time mSQL already had a similar web programming language distributed with it called Lite, but that's a whole other story. >> >> MySQL grew from humble and possibly slightly illegitimate beginnings for the purposes of being something very simple, very small, and very fast. Things like ACID compliance and MVCC were liabilities to speed and simplicity and not part of the original plan. It was never intended to be even remotely comparable to the Ingres, Sybase, Oracle, DB2 or Interbase servers of that era. >> >> * I used to work with the author of mSQL many moons ago. >> >> >> On 28/07/2011, at 4:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: >> >>> >>> You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was going to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the standard syntax that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the limit. The data in question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal structure and pulling in detail information associated with a master entry record. The problems stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my MySQL's inability properly user the index. The same request against the same data in every other platform of note executed better than 2x as fast as the MySQL implementation, in some cases on the same hardware, but most on inferior hardware. >>> >>> I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point being, that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further you push it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, I've been down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, OpenBase, MSSQL, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few (I have only used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment experience with it and do not include it for
Re: MySQL was: Re: Lion and WO
Greetings James, I tend to agree, but there are somethings that MySQL had going for them. Most notably, they were able to get academia to tell just about every student to build a web page with PHP and MySQL. They even had them recommending the two of those in book after book. Something that would help us is the notion of the concepts of WO (all of the design patterns manifested by WO). At that point, the academics think that it is their idea and they spread it. Hopefully with a good database engine. Just a thought, Dan On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:28 AM, James Cicenia wrote: > All great wealth has a slight illegitimate origin. > > Cheers > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Q wrote: > >> If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here >> is the backstory: >> >> Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to >> appear was mSQL* (aka miniSQL), which wasn't technically open source, but it >> was free for non commercial use, and distributed as source. It was initially >> an sql query engine that ran on top of Postgres (back then Postgres wasn't >> an SQL DB), but later implemented its own backend storage. >> >> About a year, maybe a year and a half after mSQL's first release, MySQL >> appears, and it just happened to support all the same cli syntax, similar >> admin tools, etc as mSQL, it was basically a straight clone of mSQL but GPL >> and free. The origin of certain chunks of the source that were in the >> initial MySQL releases were also suspiciously similar to those found in >> mSQL. >> >> Initially neither product supported concurrent queries, however MySQL >> quickly introduced support for them using threads, which basically sucked >> for years, but is was a differentiator that took many years to be matched by >> mSQL (release early vs release when it actually works). At this time, mSQL >> was very stable, and MySQL basically sucked unless you used exactly the >> right config and feature set, but had the potential to do well once all the >> feature bugs were worked out (which took another 4 years or so). >> >> For a while the two products were pretty comparable in features (that >> worked), performance and popularity, but the non commercial use license and >> a growing MySQL feature set eventually spelled the demise of mSQL's >> popularity. MySQL went on to dominate the free sql database product space >> because it was basically the only choice that didn't cost money to use >> commercially, and support concurrent queries. The appearance of php in 1995 >> helped widen that gap as demand for small SQL databases grew, despite it >> supporting both products equally. >> At that time mSQL already had a similar web programming language distributed >> with it called Lite, but that's a whole other story. >> >> MySQL grew from humble and possibly slightly illegitimate beginnings for the >> purposes of being something very simple, very small, and very fast. Things >> like ACID compliance and MVCC were liabilities to speed and simplicity and >> not part of the original plan. It was never intended to be even remotely >> comparable to the Ingres, Sybase, Oracle, DB2 or Interbase servers of that >> era. >> >> * I used to work with the author of mSQL many moons ago. >> >> >> On 28/07/2011, at 4:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: >> >>> >>> You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I >>> know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. >>> The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was >>> going to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the >>> standard syntax that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the >>> limit. The data in question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal >>> structure and pulling in detail information associated with a master entry >>> record. The problems stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my >>> MySQL's inability properly user the index. The same request against the >>> same data in every other platform of note executed better than 2x as fast >>> as the MySQL implementation, in some cases on the same hardware, but most >>> on inferior hardware. >>> >>> I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point being, >>> that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further you push >>> it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, I've been >>> down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, OpenBase, MSSQL, >>> Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few (I have only >>> used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment experience with it >>> and do not include it for that reason). Everyone one of them has >>> trade-offs and limits. Based upon that experience, for any project I start >>> today, PosgreSQL would be my first choice, with Oracle and MSSQL being 2nd >>> and
Re: MySQL was: Re: Lion and WO
All great wealth has a slight illegitimate origin. Cheers On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Q wrote: > If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here is > the backstory: > > Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to > appear was mSQL* (aka miniSQL), which wasn't technically open source, but it > was free for non commercial use, and distributed as source. It was initially > an sql query engine that ran on top of Postgres (back then Postgres wasn't an > SQL DB), but later implemented its own backend storage. > > About a year, maybe a year and a half after mSQL's first release, MySQL > appears, and it just happened to support all the same cli syntax, similar > admin tools, etc as mSQL, it was basically a straight clone of mSQL but GPL > and free. The origin of certain chunks of the source that were in the initial > MySQL releases were also suspiciously similar to those found in mSQL. > > Initially neither product supported concurrent queries, however MySQL quickly > introduced support for them using threads, which basically sucked for years, > but is was a differentiator that took many years to be matched by mSQL > (release early vs release when it actually works). At this time, mSQL was > very stable, and MySQL basically sucked unless you used exactly the right > config and feature set, but had the potential to do well once all the feature > bugs were worked out (which took another 4 years or so). > > For a while the two products were pretty comparable in features (that > worked), performance and popularity, but the non commercial use license and a > growing MySQL feature set eventually spelled the demise of mSQL's popularity. > MySQL went on to dominate the free sql database product space because it was > basically the only choice that didn't cost money to use commercially, and > support concurrent queries. The appearance of php in 1995 helped widen that > gap as demand for small SQL databases grew, despite it supporting both > products equally. > At that time mSQL already had a similar web programming language distributed > with it called Lite, but that's a whole other story. > > MySQL grew from humble and possibly slightly illegitimate beginnings for the > purposes of being something very simple, very small, and very fast. Things > like ACID compliance and MVCC were liabilities to speed and simplicity and > not part of the original plan. It was never intended to be even remotely > comparable to the Ingres, Sybase, Oracle, DB2 or Interbase servers of that > era. > > * I used to work with the author of mSQL many moons ago. > > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> >> You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I >> know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. >> The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was going >> to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the standard >> syntax that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the limit. The >> data in question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal structure and >> pulling in detail information associated with a master entry record. The >> problems stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my MySQL's inability >> properly user the index. The same request against the same data in every >> other platform of note executed better than 2x as fast as the MySQL >> implementation, in some cases on the same hardware, but most on inferior >> hardware. >> >> I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point being, >> that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further you push >> it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, I've been >> down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, OpenBase, MSSQL, >> Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few (I have only >> used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment experience with it >> and do not include it for that reason). Everyone one of them has trade-offs >> and limits. Based upon that experience, for any project I start today, >> PosgreSQL would be my first choice, with Oracle and MSSQL being 2nd and 3rd. >> MySQL would be absolutely dead last. *if* it was a project that had >> Twitter size scaling issues, I would consider altering that to use DB/2 as >> the platform of choice, because of it's ability to cleanly scale to IBM's z >> series hardware, but even then I would have to weigh the benefits versus the >> limitations of DB/2. >> >> In case it hasn't been obvious from the beginning. I loathe MySQL, both >> technically ( it is still basically a SQL engine grafted to a text based >> data engine ala PICK, DB4, Progress or Paradox ) and philosophically ( GPL >> applied to the data access libraries rather than LGPL ). I do not argue that >> both can be worked aro
Re: MySQL was: Re: Lion and WO
Just to get the last word in ;-) ……. In fairness though, _my_ user experience with MySQL 5.1 using InnoDB Plugin 1.0.x on Linux 12-core 48GB RAID server with databases of ~40GB and having a number of tables between 10 and 70 million rows has been a very good experience in terms of performance and reliability. Replication (for the purpose of backup) has always been simple to set up, both local and remote over SSL, and extremely reliable. That good experience and reliability has built confidence in MySQL/InnoDB for me to this point in time. So, the most important thing to clarify is that the default engine, MyISAM, is NOT useful for WebObjects, or anywhere you want relational, MVCC, ACID. The most common issue I have seen is devs unknowingly using the MyISAM engine. InnoDB is a completely different database engine, created by a 3rd party, and eventually bought by Oracle before they bought Sun. When you say MySQL, you should really specify MySQL/MyISAM or MySQL/InnoDB, because you might as well be talking about two different platforms. The other common problem I see is devs not taking time to configure things in /etc/my.cnf file. Yeah, it is a PITA to learn all the possible settings that can be configured and what each one does (do a 'SHOW VARIABLES;' to get an idea of many of the configurable settings). Unfortunately, if you run with all defaults on a database of any size other than small your performance will absolutely suck. This is a disaster for devs who are new to MySQL and are just installing and starting it up on defaults. In any case, this (and past) discussions have motivated me to get familiar with PostgreSQL and I look forward to that, albeit MySQL/InnoDB is working flawlessly for me in the medium-sized (small?) 40GB database and 70 million row scenario, so there is no urgent problem necessitating a change right now. Interesting discussion, Thanks, Kieran PS. It might be useful to have a WOWODC presentation next year on MySQL and PostgreSQL (and any other popular ones from the Pascal surveys) to help WO devs understand how to configure after initial installation, etc. On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Q wrote: > If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here is > the backstory: > > Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to > appear was mSQL* (aka miniSQL), which wasn't technically open source, but it > was free for non commercial use, and distributed as source. It was initially > an sql query engine that ran on top of Postgres (back then Postgres wasn't an > SQL DB), but later implemented its own backend storage. > > About a year, maybe a year and a half after mSQL's first release, MySQL > appears, and it just happened to support all the same cli syntax, similar > admin tools, etc as mSQL, it was basically a straight clone of mSQL but GPL > and free. The origin of certain chunks of the source that were in the initial > MySQL releases were also suspiciously similar to those found in mSQL. > > Initially neither product supported concurrent queries, however MySQL quickly > introduced support for them using threads, which basically sucked for years, > but is was a differentiator that took many years to be matched by mSQL > (release early vs release when it actually works). At this time, mSQL was > very stable, and MySQL basically sucked unless you used exactly the right > config and feature set, but had the potential to do well once all the feature > bugs were worked out (which took another 4 years or so). > > For a while the two products were pretty comparable in features (that > worked), performance and popularity, but the non commercial use license and a > growing MySQL feature set eventually spelled the demise of mSQL's popularity. > MySQL went on to dominate the free sql database product space because it was > basically the only choice that didn't cost money to use commercially, and > support concurrent queries. The appearance of php in 1995 helped widen that > gap as demand for small SQL databases grew, despite it supporting both > products equally. > At that time mSQL already had a similar web programming language distributed > with it called Lite, but that's a whole other story. > > MySQL grew from humble and possibly slightly illegitimate beginnings for the > purposes of being something very simple, very small, and very fast. Things > like ACID compliance and MVCC were liabilities to speed and simplicity and > not part of the original plan. It was never intended to be even remotely > comparable to the Ingres, Sybase, Oracle, DB2 or Interbase servers of that > era. > > * I used to work with the author of mSQL many moons ago. > > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> >> You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I >> know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. >> The net result is that
Re: MySQL was: Re: Lion and WO
I'll give you really scary, in 1995 I was hosting a commercial website on a win95 box that had been butchered to run a cgi scripting engine in VB. To make matters worse, the DB was MSSQL 1.0 running on a MS OS/2 1.3 server ( IBM Microchannel PS/2 ). All I can say is that it worked. To this day, I cringe to recall the configuration. Ahh, LAN Manager, OS/2 and MSSQL in the days before the Sybase license. Now THAT was an adventure. -- Andy 'Dru' Satori On Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Pascal Robert wrote: > Ah yes, I remember that we had mSQL hosting (on Solaris 2.5!) at an ISP I was > working for in 1996 to 2000, and I remember the discussions about how much > code MySQL stole from mSQL. > > Not trust me, nothing was worse than the Access/NT/ASP combo, or even worse > OS 8.6/WebStar/FMP 4.1 (with the Web Sharing crap) combo, for the Web. We had > 3 Macs and 2 NT boxes (+ many Solaris boxes) for hosting, and I had to put > those USB dongle that detected that the Mac was frozen because of FMP and > rebooted the Mac... > > Anyone remembers Tango and Butler SQL? > > > If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here > > is the backstory: > > > > Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to > > appear was mSQL* (aka miniSQL), which wasn't technically open source, but > > it was free for non commercial use, and distributed as source. It was > > initially an sql query engine that ran on top of Postgres (back then > > Postgres wasn't an SQL DB), but later implemented its own backend storage. > > > > About a year, maybe a year and a half after mSQL's first release, MySQL > > appears, and it just happened to support all the same cli syntax, similar > > admin tools, etc as mSQL, it was basically a straight clone of mSQL but GPL > > and free. The origin of certain chunks of the source that were in the > > initial MySQL releases were also suspiciously similar to those found in > > mSQL. > > > > Initially neither product supported concurrent queries, however MySQL > > quickly introduced support for them using threads, which basically sucked > > for years, but is was a differentiator that took many years to be matched > > by mSQL (release early vs release when it actually works). At this time, > > mSQL was very stable, and MySQL basically sucked unless you used exactly > > the right config and feature set, but had the potential to do well once all > > the feature bugs were worked out (which took another 4 years or so). > > > > For a while the two products were pretty comparable in features (that > > worked), performance and popularity, but the non commercial use license and > > a growing MySQL feature set eventually spelled the demise of mSQL's > > popularity. MySQL went on to dominate the free sql database product space > > because it was basically the only choice that didn't cost money to use > > commercially, and support concurrent queries. The appearance of php in 1995 > > helped widen that gap as demand for small SQL databases grew, despite it > > supporting both products equally. > > At that time mSQL already had a similar web programming language > > distributed with it called Lite, but that's a whole other story. > > > > MySQL grew from humble and possibly slightly illegitimate beginnings for > > the purposes of being something very simple, very small, and very fast. > > Things like ACID compliance and MVCC were liabilities to speed and > > simplicity and not part of the original plan. It was never intended to be > > even remotely comparable to the Ingres, Sybase, Oracle, DB2 or Interbase > > servers of that era. > > > > * I used to work with the author of mSQL many moons ago. > > > > > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > > > > > > > > You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I > > > know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. > > > The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was > > > going to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the > > > standard syntax that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the > > > limit. The data in question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal > > > structure and pulling in detail information associated with a master > > > entry record. The problems stemmed from the join and a table scan caused > > > my MySQL's inability properly user the index. The same request against > > > the same data in every other platform of note executed better than 2x as > > > fast as the MySQL implementation, in some cases on the same hardware, but > > > most on inferior hardware. > > > > > > I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point > > > being, that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further > > > you push it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, > > > I've been down
Re: MySQL was: Re: Lion and WO
Ah yes, I remember that we had mSQL hosting (on Solaris 2.5!) at an ISP I was working for in 1996 to 2000, and I remember the discussions about how much code MySQL stole from mSQL. Not trust me, nothing was worse than the Access/NT/ASP combo, or even worse OS 8.6/WebStar/FMP 4.1 (with the Web Sharing crap) combo, for the Web. We had 3 Macs and 2 NT boxes (+ many Solaris boxes) for hosting, and I had to put those USB dongle that detected that the Mac was frozen because of FMP and rebooted the Mac... Anyone remembers Tango and Butler SQL? > If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here is > the backstory: > > Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to > appear was mSQL* (aka miniSQL), which wasn't technically open source, but it > was free for non commercial use, and distributed as source. It was initially > an sql query engine that ran on top of Postgres (back then Postgres wasn't an > SQL DB), but later implemented its own backend storage. > > About a year, maybe a year and a half after mSQL's first release, MySQL > appears, and it just happened to support all the same cli syntax, similar > admin tools, etc as mSQL, it was basically a straight clone of mSQL but GPL > and free. The origin of certain chunks of the source that were in the initial > MySQL releases were also suspiciously similar to those found in mSQL. > > Initially neither product supported concurrent queries, however MySQL quickly > introduced support for them using threads, which basically sucked for years, > but is was a differentiator that took many years to be matched by mSQL > (release early vs release when it actually works). At this time, mSQL was > very stable, and MySQL basically sucked unless you used exactly the right > config and feature set, but had the potential to do well once all the feature > bugs were worked out (which took another 4 years or so). > > For a while the two products were pretty comparable in features (that > worked), performance and popularity, but the non commercial use license and a > growing MySQL feature set eventually spelled the demise of mSQL's popularity. > MySQL went on to dominate the free sql database product space because it was > basically the only choice that didn't cost money to use commercially, and > support concurrent queries. The appearance of php in 1995 helped widen that > gap as demand for small SQL databases grew, despite it supporting both > products equally. > At that time mSQL already had a similar web programming language distributed > with it called Lite, but that's a whole other story. > > MySQL grew from humble and possibly slightly illegitimate beginnings for the > purposes of being something very simple, very small, and very fast. Things > like ACID compliance and MVCC were liabilities to speed and simplicity and > not part of the original plan. It was never intended to be even remotely > comparable to the Ingres, Sybase, Oracle, DB2 or Interbase servers of that > era. > > * I used to work with the author of mSQL many moons ago. > > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> >> You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I >> know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. >> The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was going >> to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the standard >> syntax that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the limit. The >> data in question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal structure and >> pulling in detail information associated with a master entry record. The >> problems stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my MySQL's inability >> properly user the index. The same request against the same data in every >> other platform of note executed better than 2x as fast as the MySQL >> implementation, in some cases on the same hardware, but most on inferior >> hardware. >> >> I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point being, >> that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further you push >> it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, I've been >> down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, OpenBase, MSSQL, >> Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few (I have only >> used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment experience with it >> and do not include it for that reason). Everyone one of them has trade-offs >> and limits. Based upon that experience, for any project I start today, >> PosgreSQL would be my first choice, with Oracle and MSSQL being 2nd and 3rd. >> MySQL would be absolutely dead last. *if* it was a project that had >> Twitter size scaling issues, I would consider altering that to use DB/2 as >> the platform of choice, because of it's ability to cleanly scale to IBM's
Re: MySQL was: Re: Lion and WO
I had heard most of this, but some of the detail is fascinating to hear from the msql side. Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Q wrote: > If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here is > the backstory: > > Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to > appear was mSQL* (aka miniSQL), which wasn't technically open source, but it > was free for non commercial use, and distributed as source. It was initially > an sql query engine that ran on top of Postgres (back then Postgres wasn't an > SQL DB), but later implemented its own backend storage. > > About a year, maybe a year and a half after mSQL's first release, MySQL > appears, and it just happened to support all the same cli syntax, similar > admin tools, etc as mSQL, it was basically a straight clone of mSQL but GPL > and free. The origin of certain chunks of the source that were in the initial > MySQL releases were also suspiciously similar to those found in mSQL. > > Initially neither product supported concurrent queries, however MySQL quickly > introduced support for them using threads, which basically sucked for years, > but is was a differentiator that took many years to be matched by mSQL > (release early vs release when it actually works). At this time, mSQL was > very stable, and MySQL basically sucked unless you used exactly the right > config and feature set, but had the potential to do well once all the feature > bugs were worked out (which took another 4 years or so). > > For a while the two products were pretty comparable in features (that > worked), performance and popularity, but the non commercial use license and a > growing MySQL feature set eventually spelled the demise of mSQL's popularity. > MySQL went on to dominate the free sql database product space because it was > basically the only choice that didn't cost money to use commercially, and > support concurrent queries. The appearance of php in 1995 helped widen that > gap as demand for small SQL databases grew, despite it supporting both > products equally. > At that time mSQL already had a similar web programming language distributed > with it called Lite, but that's a whole other story. > > MySQL grew from humble and possibly slightly illegitimate beginnings for the > purposes of being something very simple, very small, and very fast. Things > like ACID compliance and MVCC were liabilities to speed and simplicity and > not part of the original plan. It was never intended to be even remotely > comparable to the Ingres, Sybase, Oracle, DB2 or Interbase servers of that > era. > > * I used to work with the author of mSQL many moons ago. > > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> >> You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I >> know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. >> The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was going >> to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the standard >> syntax that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the limit. The >> data in question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal structure and >> pulling in detail information associated with a master entry record. The >> problems stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my MySQL's inability >> properly user the index. The same request against the same data in every >> other platform of note executed better than 2x as fast as the MySQL >> implementation, in some cases on the same hardware, but most on inferior >> hardware. >> >> I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point being, >> that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further you push >> it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, I've been >> down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, OpenBase, MSSQL, >> Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few (I have only >> used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment experience with it >> and do not include it for that reason). Everyone one of them has trade-offs >> and limits. Based upon that experience, for any project I start today, >> PosgreSQL would be my first choice, with Oracle and MSSQL being 2nd and 3rd. >> MySQL would be absolutely dead last. *if* it was a project that had >> Twitter size scaling issues, I would consider altering that to use DB/2 as >> the platform of choice, because of it's ability to cleanly scale to IBM's z >> series hardware, but even then I would have to weigh the benefits versus the >> limitations of DB/2. >> >> In case it hasn't been obvious from the beginning. I loathe MySQL, both >> technically ( it is still basically a SQL engine grafted to a text based >> data engine ala PICK, DB4, Progress or Paradox ) and philosophically ( GPL >> appli
Re: Lion and WO
Beware PostgreSQL is faster than MySQL on the Mac, but the Mac is by far, the worst performing PostgreSQL host. The shared memory implementation is not well suited to the Mac, and when push comes to shove, pg exposes those weaknesses. PostgreSQL performs best on Linux. It works on OS x. If anyone is bored and wants toplay with a self contained user space PostgreSQL, I am in need of guinea pigs :) Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > Cool! I actually used macports to build /install PostgreSQL today. > > Regards, Kieran. > (Sent from my iPhone) > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Q wrote: > >> 650 million rows, 230Gig, growth rate of ~20 rows/sec, ~5 queries/sec >> MySQL = KaBoom! :( >> PostgreSQL = Mostly idle. >> >> MySQL is fine for simple queries and datasets that don't need lots of IO. >> For complex queries, or very large datasets MySQL's index handling and query >> planner are garbage, but that's not what MySQL was designed to be used for. >> >> On 28/07/2011, at 4:01 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: >> >>> I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall over. >>> Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory >>> allocations might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to >>> meet your expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I >>> got started with MySQL http://amzn.com/0596101716 - and, as I have said >>> before, the default out of the box settings in MySQL are dismally >>> constrained and probably designed for someone doing basic development on a >>> small memory PC. >>> >>> Other than the lack of deferred constraints, and associated workarounds, I >>> have found MySQL to be just fine in practice for tables in the 10 to 70 >>> million range, albeit, in production I usually try to have enough memory >>> (relatively inexpensive) to cover the entire DB. >>> >>> In any case, for the average WO developer, probably any one of the popular >>> dbs such as Frontbase, MySQL or PostgreSQL would be just fine. If I was >>> starting right now and had to spend the time becoming familiar with the >>> detailed ins/outs/ and configuration of a new database platform, I would >>> probably try PostgreSQL since it has deferred constraints and it is open >>> source. >>> >>> Cheers, Kieran >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: >>> roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > Hi Andrew. > > What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to > fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? > > Regards, Kieran. > (Sent from my iPhone) > > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's >> core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very >> very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the >> front end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to >> it's MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to replace the >> backend with something that scales well. >> >> OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much >> of this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. >> That comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web >> development though. >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: >> >>> FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: >>> Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have adopted a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a trap. Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real stuff, MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite limits on growth and scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have all built foundations on MySQL only to hit walls, and implement obscenely expensive workarounds. The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev platform, and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term advantages. LAMP has become a liability. Too many people assume with knowing, and it is killing techs like WO. It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. I still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective c or c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scala
MySQL was: Re: Lion and WO
If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here is the backstory: Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to appear was mSQL* (aka miniSQL), which wasn't technically open source, but it was free for non commercial use, and distributed as source. It was initially an sql query engine that ran on top of Postgres (back then Postgres wasn't an SQL DB), but later implemented its own backend storage. About a year, maybe a year and a half after mSQL's first release, MySQL appears, and it just happened to support all the same cli syntax, similar admin tools, etc as mSQL, it was basically a straight clone of mSQL but GPL and free. The origin of certain chunks of the source that were in the initial MySQL releases were also suspiciously similar to those found in mSQL. Initially neither product supported concurrent queries, however MySQL quickly introduced support for them using threads, which basically sucked for years, but is was a differentiator that took many years to be matched by mSQL (release early vs release when it actually works). At this time, mSQL was very stable, and MySQL basically sucked unless you used exactly the right config and feature set, but had the potential to do well once all the feature bugs were worked out (which took another 4 years or so). For a while the two products were pretty comparable in features (that worked), performance and popularity, but the non commercial use license and a growing MySQL feature set eventually spelled the demise of mSQL's popularity. MySQL went on to dominate the free sql database product space because it was basically the only choice that didn't cost money to use commercially, and support concurrent queries. The appearance of php in 1995 helped widen that gap as demand for small SQL databases grew, despite it supporting both products equally. At that time mSQL already had a similar web programming language distributed with it called Lite, but that's a whole other story. MySQL grew from humble and possibly slightly illegitimate beginnings for the purposes of being something very simple, very small, and very fast. Things like ACID compliance and MVCC were liabilities to speed and simplicity and not part of the original plan. It was never intended to be even remotely comparable to the Ingres, Sybase, Oracle, DB2 or Interbase servers of that era. * I used to work with the author of mSQL many moons ago. On 28/07/2011, at 4:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > > You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I > know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. > The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was going > to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the standard syntax > that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the limit. The data in > question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal structure and pulling in > detail information associated with a master entry record. The problems > stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my MySQL's inability properly > user the index. The same request against the same data in every other > platform of note executed better than 2x as fast as the MySQL implementation, > in some cases on the same hardware, but most on inferior hardware. > > I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point being, > that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further you push > it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, I've been > down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, OpenBase, MSSQL, > Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few (I have only > used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment experience with it and > do not include it for that reason). Everyone one of them has trade-offs and > limits. Based upon that experience, for any project I start today, PosgreSQL > would be my first choice, with Oracle and MSSQL being 2nd and 3rd. MySQL > would be absolutely dead last. *if* it was a project that had Twitter size > scaling issues, I would consider altering that to use DB/2 as the platform of > choice, because of it's ability to cleanly scale to IBM's z series hardware, > but even then I would have to weigh the benefits versus the limitations of > DB/2. > > In case it hasn't been obvious from the beginning. I loathe MySQL, both > technically ( it is still basically a SQL engine grafted to a text based data > engine ala PICK, DB4, Progress or Paradox ) and philosophically ( GPL applied > to the data access libraries rather than LGPL ). I do not argue that both can > be worked around, but bluntly spoken, if it is a serious RDBMS and it wants > to play with the big boys, then I should not have to. > > Yes, I am heavily biased against MySQL. I do not claim to be anything else. > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at
Re: Lion and WO
Cool! I actually used macports to build /install PostgreSQL today. Regards, Kieran. (Sent from my iPhone) On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Q wrote: > 650 million rows, 230Gig, growth rate of ~20 rows/sec, ~5 queries/sec > MySQL = KaBoom! :( > PostgreSQL = Mostly idle. > > MySQL is fine for simple queries and datasets that don't need lots of IO. For > complex queries, or very large datasets MySQL's index handling and query > planner are garbage, but that's not what MySQL was designed to be used for. > > On 28/07/2011, at 4:01 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > >> I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall over. >> Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory >> allocations might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to meet >> your expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I got >> started with MySQL http://amzn.com/0596101716 - and, as I have said before, >> the default out of the box settings in MySQL are dismally constrained and >> probably designed for someone doing basic development on a small memory PC. >> >> Other than the lack of deferred constraints, and associated workarounds, I >> have found MySQL to be just fine in practice for tables in the 10 to 70 >> million range, albeit, in production I usually try to have enough memory >> (relatively inexpensive) to cover the entire DB. >> >> In any case, for the average WO developer, probably any one of the popular >> dbs such as Frontbase, MySQL or PostgreSQL would be just fine. If I was >> starting right now and had to spend the time becoming familiar with the >> detailed ins/outs/ and configuration of a new database platform, I would >> probably try PostgreSQL since it has deferred constraints and it is open >> source. >> >> Cheers, Kieran >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: >> >>> roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: >>> Hi Andrew. What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? Regards, Kieran. (Sent from my iPhone) On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's > core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very > very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the > front end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to > it's MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to replace the > backend with something that scales well. > > OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of > this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. > That comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development > though. > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: > >> FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: >> >>> Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have >>> adopted a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a >>> trap. Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real >>> stuff, MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite >>> limits on growth and scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have >>> all built foundations on MySQL only to hit walls, and implement >>> obscenely expensive workarounds. >>> >>> The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev >>> platform, and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term >>> advantages. LAMP has become a liability. Too many people assume with >>> knowing, and it is killing techs like WO. >>> >>> It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used >>> apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full >>> circle. I still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is >>> objective c or c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, >>> and I do not have to deal with 10 layers of stack to make things work. >>> >>> I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal >>> disaster to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not >>> better. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Sent from my HP TouchPad >>> On Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: >>> FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see >>> some traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL >>> database these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide >>
Re: Lion and WO
650 million rows, 230Gig, growth rate of ~20 rows/sec, ~5 queries/sec MySQL = KaBoom! :( PostgreSQL = Mostly idle. MySQL is fine for simple queries and datasets that don't need lots of IO. For complex queries, or very large datasets MySQL's index handling and query planner are garbage, but that's not what MySQL was designed to be used for. On 28/07/2011, at 4:01 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall over. > Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory > allocations might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to meet > your expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I got > started with MySQL http://amzn.com/0596101716 - and, as I have said before, > the default out of the box settings in MySQL are dismally constrained and > probably designed for someone doing basic development on a small memory PC. > > Other than the lack of deferred constraints, and associated workarounds, I > have found MySQL to be just fine in practice for tables in the 10 to 70 > million range, albeit, in production I usually try to have enough memory > (relatively inexpensive) to cover the entire DB. > > In any case, for the average WO developer, probably any one of the popular > dbs such as Frontbase, MySQL or PostgreSQL would be just fine. If I was > starting right now and had to spend the time becoming familiar with the > detailed ins/outs/ and configuration of a new database platform, I would > probably try PostgreSQL since it has deferred constraints and it is open > source. > > Cheers, Kieran > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew. >>> >>> What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to >>> fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? >>> >>> Regards, Kieran. >>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: >>> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to replace the backend with something that scales well. OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. That comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development though. On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: > FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: > >> Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have >> adopted a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a >> trap. Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real >> stuff, MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite >> limits on growth and scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have >> all built foundations on MySQL only to hit walls, and implement >> obscenely expensive workarounds. >> >> The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev >> platform, and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term >> advantages. LAMP has become a liability. Too many people assume with >> knowing, and it is killing techs like WO. >> >> It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used >> apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. >> I still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective >> c or c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, and I do >> not have to deal with 10 layers of stack to make things work. >> >> I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal >> disaster to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not >> better. >> >> >> >> >> -- Sent from my HP TouchPad >> On Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: >> FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see >> some traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL >> database these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. >> FrontBase fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less >> every year. As long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do >> so well), they will keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever >> going to rep
Re: Lion and WO
Finding a weak spot in the query optimizer can be done for any database, can't it? That's just the nature of the beast. On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > Good detail. Thanks for the insight. And yeah, it was obvious from the > beginning that you loathed MySQL! ;-) > > Cheers, Kieran > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > > > > > You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. > I know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around > it. The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was > going to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the standard > syntax that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the limit. The > data in question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal structure and > pulling in detail information associated with a master entry record. The > problems stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my MySQL's inability > properly user the index. The same request against the same data in every > other platform of note executed better than 2x as fast as the MySQL > implementation, in some cases on the same hardware, but most on inferior > hardware. > ___ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
Even more than I do! :-P On 2011-07-27, at 12:22 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > Good detail. Thanks for the insight. And yeah, it was obvious from the > beginning that you loathed MySQL! ;-) > > Cheers, Kieran > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> >> You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I >> know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. >> The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was going >> to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the standard >> syntax that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the limit. The >> data in question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal structure and >> pulling in detail information associated with a master entry record. The >> problems stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my MySQL's inability >> properly user the index. The same request against the same data in every >> other platform of note executed better than 2x as fast as the MySQL >> implementation, in some cases on the same hardware, but most on inferior >> hardware. >> >> I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point being, >> that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further you push >> it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, I've been >> down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, OpenBase, MSSQL, >> Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few (I have only >> used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment experience with it >> and do not include it for that reason). Everyone one of them has trade-offs >> and limits. Based upon that experience, for any project I start today, >> PosgreSQL would be my first choice, with Oracle and MSSQL being 2nd and 3rd. >> MySQL would be absolutely dead last. *if* it was a project that had >> Twitter size scaling issues, I would consider altering that to use DB/2 as >> the platform of choice, because of it's ability to cleanly scale to IBM's z >> series hardware, but even then I would have to weigh the benefits versus the >> limitations of DB/2. >> >> In case it hasn't been obvious from the beginning. I loathe MySQL, both >> technically ( it is still basically a SQL engine grafted to a text based >> data engine ala PICK, DB4, Progress or Paradox ) and philosophically ( GPL >> applied to the data access libraries rather than LGPL ). I do not argue that >> both can be worked around, but bluntly spoken, if it is a serious RDBMS and >> it wants to play with the big boys, then I should not have to. >> >> Yes, I am heavily biased against MySQL. I do not claim to be anything else. >> >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: >> >>> I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall over. >>> Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory >>> allocations might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to >>> meet your expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I >>> got started with MySQL http://amzn.com/0596101716 - and, as I have said >>> before, the default out of the box settings in MySQL are dismally >>> constrained and probably designed for someone doing basic development on a >>> small memory PC. >>> >>> Other than the lack of deferred constraints, and associated workarounds, I >>> have found MySQL to be just fine in practice for tables in the 10 to 70 >>> million range, albeit, in production I usually try to have enough memory >>> (relatively inexpensive) to cover the entire DB. >>> >>> In any case, for the average WO developer, probably any one of the popular >>> dbs such as Frontbase, MySQL or PostgreSQL would be just fine. If I was >>> starting right now and had to spend the time becoming familiar with the >>> detailed ins/outs/ and configuration of a new database platform, I would >>> probably try PostgreSQL since it has deferred constraints and it is open >>> source. >>> >>> Cheers, Kieran >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: >>> roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > Hi Andrew. > > What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to > fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? > > Regards, Kieran. > (Sent from my iPhone) > > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's >> core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very >> very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the >> front end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to >> it's MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to repla
Re: Lion and WO
Good detail. Thanks for the insight. And yeah, it was obvious from the beginning that you loathed MySQL! ;-) Cheers, Kieran On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > > You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I > know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. > The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was going > to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the standard syntax > that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the limit. The data in > question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal structure and pulling in > detail information associated with a master entry record. The problems > stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my MySQL's inability properly > user the index. The same request against the same data in every other > platform of note executed better than 2x as fast as the MySQL implementation, > in some cases on the same hardware, but most on inferior hardware. > > I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point being, > that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further you push > it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, I've been > down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, OpenBase, MSSQL, > Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few (I have only > used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment experience with it and > do not include it for that reason). Everyone one of them has trade-offs and > limits. Based upon that experience, for any project I start today, PosgreSQL > would be my first choice, with Oracle and MSSQL being 2nd and 3rd. MySQL > would be absolutely dead last. *if* it was a project that had Twitter size > scaling issues, I would consider altering that to use DB/2 as the platform of > choice, because of it's ability to cleanly scale to IBM's z series hardware, > but even then I would have to weigh the benefits versus the limitations of > DB/2. > > In case it hasn't been obvious from the beginning. I loathe MySQL, both > technically ( it is still basically a SQL engine grafted to a text based data > engine ala PICK, DB4, Progress or Paradox ) and philosophically ( GPL applied > to the data access libraries rather than LGPL ). I do not argue that both can > be worked around, but bluntly spoken, if it is a serious RDBMS and it wants > to play with the big boys, then I should not have to. > > Yes, I am heavily biased against MySQL. I do not claim to be anything else. > > > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > >> I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall over. >> Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory >> allocations might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to meet >> your expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I got >> started with MySQL http://amzn.com/0596101716 - and, as I have said before, >> the default out of the box settings in MySQL are dismally constrained and >> probably designed for someone doing basic development on a small memory PC. >> >> Other than the lack of deferred constraints, and associated workarounds, I >> have found MySQL to be just fine in practice for tables in the 10 to 70 >> million range, albeit, in production I usually try to have enough memory >> (relatively inexpensive) to cover the entire DB. >> >> In any case, for the average WO developer, probably any one of the popular >> dbs such as Frontbase, MySQL or PostgreSQL would be just fine. If I was >> starting right now and had to spend the time becoming familiar with the >> detailed ins/outs/ and configuration of a new database platform, I would >> probably try PostgreSQL since it has deferred constraints and it is open >> source. >> >> Cheers, Kieran >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: >> >>> roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. >>> >>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: >>> Hi Andrew. What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? Regards, Kieran. (Sent from my iPhone) On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's > core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very > very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the > front end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to > it's MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to replace the > backend with something that scales well. > > OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of > this trap by implementing a greater su
Re: Lion and WO
for that matter neither can MSSQL, they both use select top ## * syntax instead of limit :D On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> I've been down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, >> OpenBase, MSSQL, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a >> few (I have only used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment >> experience with it and do not include it for that reason). Every one of >> them has trade-offs and limits. > > Except Sybase. It can't do LIMIT (^_^) *Ba-dump-cha*! > > Ramsey ___ > 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/dru%40druware.com > > This email sent to d...@druware.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > I've been down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, > OpenBase, MSSQL, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few > (I have only used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment > experience with it and do not include it for that reason). Every one of them > has trade-offs and limits. Except Sybase. It can't do LIMIT (^_^) *Ba-dump-cha*! Ramsey ___ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. The net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was going to have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the standard syntax that works across multiple backends. Hardware was not the limit. The data in question was in how MySQL coped with a 5th normal structure and pulling in detail information associated with a master entry record. The problems stemmed from the join and a table scan caused my MySQL's inability properly user the index. The same request against the same data in every other platform of note executed better than 2x as fast as the MySQL implementation, in some cases on the same hardware, but most on inferior hardware. I understand your point, and yes, there are/were solutions. My point being, that MySQL has limitations. They can be overcome, but the further you push it, the more difficult and expensive they become. Unfortunately, I've been down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL, OpenBase, MSSQL, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few (I have only used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment experience with it and do not include it for that reason). Everyone one of them has trade-offs and limits. Based upon that experience, for any project I start today, PosgreSQL would be my first choice, with Oracle and MSSQL being 2nd and 3rd. MySQL would be absolutely dead last. *if* it was a project that had Twitter size scaling issues, I would consider altering that to use DB/2 as the platform of choice, because of it's ability to cleanly scale to IBM's z series hardware, but even then I would have to weigh the benefits versus the limitations of DB/2. In case it hasn't been obvious from the beginning. I loathe MySQL, both technically ( it is still basically a SQL engine grafted to a text based data engine ala PICK, DB4, Progress or Paradox ) and philosophically ( GPL applied to the data access libraries rather than LGPL ). I do not argue that both can be worked around, but bluntly spoken, if it is a serious RDBMS and it wants to play with the big boys, then I should not have to. Yes, I am heavily biased against MySQL. I do not claim to be anything else. On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall over. > Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory > allocations might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to meet > your expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I got > started with MySQL http://amzn.com/0596101716 - and, as I have said before, > the default out of the box settings in MySQL are dismally constrained and > probably designed for someone doing basic development on a small memory PC. > > Other than the lack of deferred constraints, and associated workarounds, I > have found MySQL to be just fine in practice for tables in the 10 to 70 > million range, albeit, in production I usually try to have enough memory > (relatively inexpensive) to cover the entire DB. > > In any case, for the average WO developer, probably any one of the popular > dbs such as Frontbase, MySQL or PostgreSQL would be just fine. If I was > starting right now and had to spend the time becoming familiar with the > detailed ins/outs/ and configuration of a new database platform, I would > probably try PostgreSQL since it has deferred constraints and it is open > source. > > Cheers, Kieran > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. >> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew. >>> >>> What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to >>> fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? >>> >>> Regards, Kieran. >>> (Sent from my iPhone) >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: >>> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to replace the backend with something that scales well. OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. That comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development though. On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: > FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. > > Sent from my iPhone > > O
Re: Lion and WO
I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall over. Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory allocations might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to meet your expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I got started with MySQL http://amzn.com/0596101716 - and, as I have said before, the default out of the box settings in MySQL are dismally constrained and probably designed for someone doing basic development on a small memory PC. Other than the lack of deferred constraints, and associated workarounds, I have found MySQL to be just fine in practice for tables in the 10 to 70 million range, albeit, in production I usually try to have enough memory (relatively inexpensive) to cover the entire DB. In any case, for the average WO developer, probably any one of the popular dbs such as Frontbase, MySQL or PostgreSQL would be just fine. If I was starting right now and had to spend the time becoming familiar with the detailed ins/outs/ and configuration of a new database platform, I would probably try PostgreSQL since it has deferred constraints and it is open source. Cheers, Kieran On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Andrew Satori wrote: > roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > >> Hi Andrew. >> >> What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to >> fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? >> >> Regards, Kieran. >> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: >> >>> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's >>> core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very >>> very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front >>> end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's >>> MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to replace the backend with >>> something that scales well. >>> >>> OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of >>> this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. That >>> comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development though. >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: >>> FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: > Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have > adopted a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a > trap. Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real > stuff, MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite > limits on growth and scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have > all built foundations on MySQL only to hit walls, and implement obscenely > expensive workarounds. > > The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev > platform, and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term > advantages. LAMP has become a liability. Too many people assume with > knowing, and it is killing techs like WO. > > It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used > apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. > I still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective c > or c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, and I do not > have to deal with 10 layers of stack to make things work. > > I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal > disaster to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not > better. > > > > > -- Sent from my HP TouchPad > On Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: > FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see > some traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL > database these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. > FrontBase fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less > every year. As long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do > so well), they will keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever > going to replace MySQL. > > > On 2011-07-25, at 8:45 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > >> Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see >> that and laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> >> >> >> On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: >> >>> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology >>> that hadn't been updated in years, with almost no commu
Re: Lion and WO
roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table. On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > Hi Andrew. > > What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to fall > over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? > > Regards, Kieran. > (Sent from my iPhone) > > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's >> core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very very >> hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front end >> is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's MySQL >> roots though, they are not in a position to replace the backend with >> something that scales well. >> >> OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of >> this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. That >> comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development though. >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: >> >>> FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: >>> Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have adopted a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a trap. Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real stuff, MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite limits on growth and scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have all built foundations on MySQL only to hit walls, and implement obscenely expensive workarounds. The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev platform, and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term advantages. LAMP has become a liability. Too many people assume with knowing, and it is killing techs like WO. It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. I still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective c or c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, and I do not have to deal with 10 layers of stack to make things work. I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal disaster to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not better. -- Sent from my HP TouchPad On Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see some traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL database these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. FrontBase fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less every year. As long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do so well), they will keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever going to replace MySQL. On 2011-07-25, at 8:45 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see that > and laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > > > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: > >> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology >> that hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the >> company in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) >> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: >> Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with >> WO definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen >> completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any >> public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing >> to do. >> >> I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop >> against something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The >> tweet indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from >> the company since Feb 2010. >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> ___ >> 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/lists%40thetimmy.com >> >> >> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.com > > ___ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Web
Re: Lion and WO
+1 Jérémy Le 27 juil. 2011 à 07:58, Mike Schrag a écrit : > Rule #1 of not being Google, Twitter, or Facebook: You're not Google, > Twitter, or Facebook. Rule #2: you never will be. Embrace your newfound > freedom and use whatever database you want. > > ms > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:14 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > >> Hi Andrew. >> >> What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to >> fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? >> >> Regards, Kieran. >> (Sent from my iPhone) >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: >> >>> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's >>> core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very >>> very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front >>> end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's >>> MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to replace the backend with >>> something that scales well. >>> >>> OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of >>> this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. That >>> comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development though. >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: >>> FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: > Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have > adopted a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a > trap. Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real > stuff, MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite > limits on growth and scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have > all built foundations on MySQL only to hit walls, and implement obscenely > expensive workarounds. > > The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev > platform, and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term > advantages. LAMP has become a liability. Too many people assume with > knowing, and it is killing techs like WO. > > It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used > apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. > I still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective c > or c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, and I do not > have to deal with 10 layers of stack to make things work. > > I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal > disaster to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not > better. > > > > > -- Sent from my HP TouchPad > On Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: > FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see > some traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL > database these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. > FrontBase fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less > every year. As long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do > so well), they will keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever > going to replace MySQL. > > > On 2011-07-25, at 8:45 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > >> Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see >> that and laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> >> >> >> On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: >> >>> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology >>> that hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from >>> the company in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman >>> wrote: >>> Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with >>> WO definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen >>> completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any >>> public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is >>> nothing to do. >>> >>> I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop >>> against something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The >>> tweet indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two >>> from the company since Feb 2010. >>> >>> Tim Worman >>> UCLA GSE&IS >>> ___ >>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) >>> Help/Unsubscribe
Re: Lion and WO
Rule #1 of not being Google, Twitter, or Facebook: You're not Google, Twitter, or Facebook. Rule #2: you never will be. Embrace your newfound freedom and use whatever database you want. ms On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:14 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote: > Hi Andrew. > > What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to fall > over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? > > Regards, Kieran. > (Sent from my iPhone) > > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > >> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's >> core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very very >> hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front end >> is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's MySQL >> roots though, they are not in a position to replace the backend with >> something that scales well. >> >> OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of >> this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. That >> comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development though. >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: >> >>> FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: >>> Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have adopted a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a trap. Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real stuff, MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite limits on growth and scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have all built foundations on MySQL only to hit walls, and implement obscenely expensive workarounds. The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev platform, and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term advantages. LAMP has become a liability. Too many people assume with knowing, and it is killing techs like WO. It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. I still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective c or c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, and I do not have to deal with 10 layers of stack to make things work. I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal disaster to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not better. -- Sent from my HP TouchPad On Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see some traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL database these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. FrontBase fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less every year. As long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do so well), they will keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever going to replace MySQL. On 2011-07-25, at 8:45 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see that > and laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > > > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: > >> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology >> that hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the >> company in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) >> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: >> Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with >> WO definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen >> completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any >> public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing >> to do. >> >> I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop >> against something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The >> tweet indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from >> the company since Feb 2010. >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> ___ >> 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/lists%40thetimmy.com >> >> >> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.com > > _
Re: Lion and WO
Hi Andrew. What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to fall over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max? Regards, Kieran. (Sent from my iPhone) On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote: > To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's core > weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very very hard. > In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front end is still > scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's MySQL roots though, > they are not in a position to replace the backend with something that scales > well. > > OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of > this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. That > comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development though. > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: > >> FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: >> >>> Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have adopted >>> a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a trap. >>> Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real stuff, >>> MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite limits on >>> growth and scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have all built >>> foundations on MySQL only to hit walls, and implement obscenely expensive >>> workarounds. >>> >>> The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev platform, >>> and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term advantages. LAMP >>> has become a liability. Too many people assume with knowing, and it is >>> killing techs like WO. >>> >>> It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used >>> apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. I >>> still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective c or >>> c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, and I do not have >>> to deal with 10 layers of stack to make things work. >>> >>> I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal disaster >>> to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not better. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Sent from my HP TouchPad >>> On Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: >>> FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see some >>> traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL database >>> these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. FrontBase >>> fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less every year. As >>> long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do so well), they >>> will keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever going to replace >>> MySQL. >>> >>> >>> On 2011-07-25, at 8:45 PM, Tim Worman wrote: >>> Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see that and laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) Tim Worman UCLA GSE&IS On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: > I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology > that hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the > company in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with > WO definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen > completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any > public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing > to do. > > I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop against > something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The tweet > indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from the > company since Feb 2010. > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > ___ > 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/lists%40thetimmy.com > > > This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/chill%40global-village.net This email sent to ch...@global-vi
Re: Lion and WO
To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's core weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very very hard. In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front end is still scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's MySQL roots though, they are not in a position to replace the backend with something that scales well. OpenBase, FrontBase, and to a lesser degree, PostgreSQL limit how much of this trap by implementing a greater subset of 'common' functionality. That comes at the cost of some friendly behaviors towards web development though. On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Travis Britt wrote: > FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: > >> Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have adopted >> a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a trap. Skipping >> over the license issues, and going straight to the real stuff, MySQL has >> been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite limits on growth and >> scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have all built foundations on >> MySQL only to hit walls, and implement obscenely expensive workarounds. >> >> The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev platform, >> and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term advantages. LAMP >> has become a liability. Too many people assume with knowing, and it is >> killing techs like WO. >> >> It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used >> apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. I >> still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective c or >> c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, and I do not have >> to deal with 10 layers of stack to make things work. >> >> I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal disaster >> to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not better. >> >> >> >> >> -- Sent from my HP TouchPad >> On Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: >> FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see some >> traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL database >> these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. FrontBase >> fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less every year. As >> long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do so well), they will >> keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever going to replace MySQL. >> >> >> On 2011-07-25, at 8:45 PM, Tim Worman wrote: >> >> > Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see that >> > and laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) >> > >> > Tim Worman >> > UCLA GSE&IS >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: >> > >> >> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology >> >> that hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the >> >> company in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: >> >> Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with >> >> WO definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen >> >> completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any >> >> public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing >> >> to do. >> >> >> >> I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop against >> >> something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The tweet >> >> indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from the >> >> company since Feb 2010. >> >> >> >> Tim Worman >> >> UCLA GSE&IS >> >> ___ >> >> 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/lists%40thetimmy.com >> >> >> >> >> >> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/chill%40global-village.net >> > >> > >> > This email sent to ch...@global-village.net >> >> -- >> Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >>
Re: Lion and WO
FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote: > Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have adopted a > MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a trap. Skipping > over the license issues, and going straight to the real stuff, MySQL has been > shown repeatedly to have very real and finite limits on growth and > scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have all built foundations on > MySQL only to hit walls, and implement obscenely expensive workarounds. > > The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev platform, > and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term advantages. LAMP has > become a liability. Too many people assume with knowing, and it is killing > techs like WO. > > It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used apple's > teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. I still > have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective c or c++ cgi > implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, and I do not have to deal > with 10 layers of stack to make things work. > > I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal disaster > to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not better. > > > > > -- Sent from my HP TouchPad > On Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: > FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see some > traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL database > these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. FrontBase > fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less every year. As > long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do so well), they will > keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever going to replace MySQL. > > > On 2011-07-25, at 8:45 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > > > Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see that > > and laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) > > > > Tim Worman > > UCLA GSE&IS > > > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: > > > >> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology > >> that hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the > >> company in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > >> Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with WO > >> definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen > >> completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any > >> public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing > >> to do. > >> > >> I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop against > >> something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The tweet > >> indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from the > >> company since Feb 2010. > >> > >> Tim Worman > >> UCLA GSE&IS > >> ___ > >> 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/lists%40thetimmy.com > >> > >> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/chill%40global-village.net > > > > > > This email sent to ch...@global-village.net > > -- > Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development > > 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/dru%40druware.com > > This email sent to d...@druware.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/tbritt%40phigment.org > > This email sent to tbr...@phigment.org ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They wi
Re: Lion and WO
Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have adopted a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a trap. Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real stuff, MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite limits on growth and scalability. Google, twitter, facebook, etc have all built foundations on MySQL only to hit walls, and implement obscenely expensive workarounds.The problem is that the alternatives do not cater to the web dev platform, and they lose in the "startup" phases despite long term advantages. LAMP has become a liability. Too many people assume with knowing, and it is killing techs like WO.It gets worse when you mix in python and coredata/sqllite. Ever used apple's teams wiki server. Uggh, what a mess. It will come full circle. I still have a coup,e WO projects but most of my new work is objective c or c++ cgi implementation. It is fast, scalable, portable, and I do not have to deal with 10 layers of stack to make things work.I love WO, I hate the scripting environments, and .net is an equal disaster to LAMP. Basically, the web toolkits have gotten worse, not better.-- Sent from my HP TouchPadOn Jul 25, 2011 11:51 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see some traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL database these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. FrontBase fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less every year. As long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do so well), they will keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever going to replace MySQL. On 2011-07-25, at 8:45 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see that and laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > > > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: > >> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology that hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the company in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) >> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: >> Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with WO definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing to do. >> >> I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop against something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The tweet indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from the company since Feb 2010. >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> ___ >> 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/lists%40thetimmy.com >> >> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/chill%40global-village.net > > This email sent to ch...@global-village.net -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development 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/dru%40druware.com This email sent to d...@druware.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see some traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL database these days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. FrontBase fills a niche market, of which WO is probably less and less every year. As long as their goal is to target their niche (and they do so well), they will keep going. Neither FrontBase or OpenBase are ever going to replace MySQL. On 2011-07-25, at 8:45 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see that and > laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > > > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: > >> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology that >> hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the company >> in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) >> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: >> Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with WO >> definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen >> completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any >> public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing to >> do. >> >> I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop against >> something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The tweet >> indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from the >> company since Feb 2010. >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> ___ >> 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/lists%40thetimmy.com >> >> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/chill%40global-village.net > > This email sent to ch...@global-village.net -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see that and laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-) Tim Worman UCLA GSE&IS On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: > I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology that > hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the company > in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with WO > definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen > completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any > public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing to > do. > > I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop against > something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The tweet > indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from the > company since Feb 2010. > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > ___ > 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/lists%40thetimmy.com > > This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
ROFLAMO! On 2011-07-25, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote: > I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology that > hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the company > in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with WO > definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen > completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any > public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing to > do. > > I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop against > something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The tweet > indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from the > company since Feb 2010. > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > ___ > 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 ch...@global-village.net -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology that hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the company in charge of it! What is that like? ;-) On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote: > Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with WO > definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen > completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any > public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing to > do. > > I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop against > something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The tweet > indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from the > company since Feb 2010. > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > ___ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
Openbase has been a great product from day one. And integrating it with WO definitely is seamless. I'm a fan. But the developer list has fallen completely silent and it used to be vibrant. The product hasn't had any public updates since 2009 - I don't think it is because there is nothing to do. I'm in no hurry at all to move my server but I do have to develop against something and that can't be Openbase if I'm running Lion. The tweet indicating that a beta has been "released" is one of only two from the company since Feb 2010. Tim Worman UCLA GSE&IS On Jul 25, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Andy 'Dru' Satori wrote: > MySQL is really the only platform that fits this description. I have worked > with pretty much every RDMS over the last 20 years, and none fit the PHP > conformity description other than MySQL. OpenBase has more association with > WO and EoF than any other, and for the most part is the only RDBMS that is WO > ready out of the box. > > PostgreSQL, Oracle, MSSQL, among others have added web functions, but that is > barely even on the list of primary tasks. If you find the need to move on, > there are several excellent options that aren't MySQL. As a matter of fact, > I would strongly recommend anything but MySQL if your needs will ever exceed > small volume system. OpenBase may seem quiet, it is because there is not > much that it truly needs to fill it's role. The pace of change in the RDBMS > space is slowing as we begin to transition towards distributed techs and > massively scaling cloud systems. > > In short, I see no reason to move off open base or front base unless other > business considerations dictate the change... > > Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:13 PM, "Beatty, Daniel D CIV NAVAIR, 474300D" > wrote: > >> Greetings Tim, >> But I like Frontbase and OpenBase. They are really cool database that have >> the simplicity of just being a SQL-92 database without any non-sense. This >> is going to force us into the mindless collective PHP dictated databases. >> >> Later, >> Dan >> >> -Original Message- >> From: webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com >> [mailto:webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com] On >> Behalf Of Tim Worman >> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 17:03 >> To: Ramsey Gurley >> Cc: WebObjects Development >> Subject: Re: Lion and WO >> >> No, I've been using Openbase for a long time. I'm probably going to have to >> make a move though since there seems to be very little activity around the >> product. >> >> There's a tweet mentioning a beta release for Lion: >> >> http://twitter.com/#!/OpenBase/statuses/90781766431936512 >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> >> On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: >> >>> Postgresql? >>> >>> On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote: >>> >>>> The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - >>>> probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev >>>> right now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. >>>> >>>> Tim Worman >>>> UCLA GSE&IS >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: >>>> >>>>> yes, long ago .. works fine. >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: >>>>>>> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >>>>>>> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. >>>>>>> Apache WO adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not >>>>>>> pre-installed, so just start any Java process (a simple call to >>>>>>> /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will ask you if you want to install >>>>>>> Java. If you say so, it will download Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install >>>>>>> it. ___ >>>>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>>>>>> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) >>>>>>> Help/Unsubscri
Re: Lion and WO
MySQL is really the only platform that fits this description. I have worked with pretty much every RDMS over the last 20 years, and none fit the PHP conformity description other than MySQL. OpenBase has more association with WO and EoF than any other, and for the most part is the only RDBMS that is WO ready out of the box. PostgreSQL, Oracle, MSSQL, among others have added web functions, but that is barely even on the list of primary tasks. If you find the need to move on, there are several excellent options that aren't MySQL. As a matter of fact, I would strongly recommend anything but MySQL if your needs will ever exceed small volume system. OpenBase may seem quiet, it is because there is not much that it truly needs to fill it's role. The pace of change in the RDBMS space is slowing as we begin to transition towards distributed techs and massively scaling cloud systems. In short, I see no reason to move off open base or front base unless other business considerations dictate the change... Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:13 PM, "Beatty, Daniel D CIV NAVAIR, 474300D" wrote: > Greetings Tim, > But I like Frontbase and OpenBase. They are really cool database that have > the simplicity of just being a SQL-92 database without any non-sense. This > is going to force us into the mindless collective PHP dictated databases. > > Later, > Dan > > -Original Message- > From: webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com > [mailto:webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com] On > Behalf Of Tim Worman > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 17:03 > To: Ramsey Gurley > Cc: WebObjects Development > Subject: Re: Lion and WO > > No, I've been using Openbase for a long time. I'm probably going to have to > make a move though since there seems to be very little activity around the > product. > > There's a tweet mentioning a beta release for Lion: > > http://twitter.com/#!/OpenBase/statuses/90781766431936512 > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: > >> Postgresql? >> >> On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote: >> >>> The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - >>> probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev >>> right now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. >>> >>> Tim Worman >>> UCLA GSE&IS >>> >>> >>> On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: >>> >>>> yes, long ago .. works fine. >>>> >>>> On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: >>>> >>>>> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? >>>>> >>>>> On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: >>>>>> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >>>>>> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache >>>>>> WO adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so >>>>>> just start any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and >>>>>> Finder will ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will >>>>>> download Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. >>>>>> ___ >>>>>> 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk >>>>>> >>>>>> This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk >>>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> 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%40pobox.com >>>>> >>>>> This email sent to msch...@pobox.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: &g
RE: Lion and WO
Greetings Tim, But I like Frontbase and OpenBase. They are really cool database that have the simplicity of just being a SQL-92 database without any non-sense. This is going to force us into the mindless collective PHP dictated databases. Later, Dan -Original Message- From: webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com [mailto:webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Tim Worman Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 17:03 To: Ramsey Gurley Cc: WebObjects Development Subject: Re: Lion and WO No, I've been using Openbase for a long time. I'm probably going to have to make a move though since there seems to be very little activity around the product. There's a tweet mentioning a beta release for Lion: http://twitter.com/#!/OpenBase/statuses/90781766431936512 Tim Worman UCLA GSE&IS On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: > Postgresql? > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote: > >> The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - >> probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev right >> now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> >> >> On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: >> >>> yes, long ago .. works fine. >>> >>> On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: >>> >>>> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? >>>> >>>> On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: >>>>> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >>>>> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache >>>>> WO adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just >>>>> start any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and >>>>> Finder will ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will >>>>> download Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. >>>>> ___ >>>>> 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk >>>>> >>>>> This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk >>>>> >>>> ___ >>>> 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%40pobox.com >>>> >>>> This email sent to msch...@pobox.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/lists%40thetimmy.com >>> >>> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/rgurley%40smarthealth.com >> >> This email sent to rgur...@smarthealth.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/daniel.beatty%40navy.mil This email sent to daniel.bea...@navy.mil 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
No, I've been using Openbase for a long time. I'm probably going to have to make a move though since there seems to be very little activity around the product. There's a tweet mentioning a beta release for Lion: http://twitter.com/#!/OpenBase/statuses/90781766431936512 Tim Worman UCLA GSE&IS On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: > Postgresql? > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote: > >> The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - >> probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev right >> now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> >> >> On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: >> >>> yes, long ago .. works fine. >>> >>> On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: >>> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: > Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini > Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache > WO adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just > start any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and > Finder will ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will > download Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. > ___ > 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk > > This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk > ___ 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%40pobox.com This email sent to msch...@pobox.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/lists%40thetimmy.com >>> >>> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/rgurley%40smarthealth.com >> >> This email sent to rgur...@smarthealth.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
PostgreSQL is just fine in lion Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote: > Postgresql? > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote: > >> The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - >> probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev right >> now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. >> >> Tim Worman >> UCLA GSE&IS >> >> >> On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: >> >>> yes, long ago .. works fine. >>> >>> On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: >>> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: > Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini > Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache > WO adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just > start any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and > Finder will ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will > download Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. > ___ > 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk > > This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk > ___ 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%40pobox.com This email sent to msch...@pobox.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/lists%40thetimmy.com >>> >>> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/rgurley%40smarthealth.com >> >> This email sent to rgur...@smarthealth.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/dru%40druware.com > > This email sent to d...@druware.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
Postgresql? On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote: > The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - > probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev right > now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. > > Tim Worman > UCLA GSE&IS > > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: > >> yes, long ago .. works fine. >> >> On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: >> >>> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? >>> >>> On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. ___ 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk >>> ___ >>> 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%40pobox.com >>> >>> This email sent to msch...@pobox.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/lists%40thetimmy.com >> >> This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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/rgurley%40smarthealth.com > > This email sent to rgur...@smarthealth.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev right now since my current database doesn't install in Lion. Tim Worman UCLA GSE&IS On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: > yes, long ago .. works fine. > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: > >> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? >> >> On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: >>> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >>> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO >>> adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just >>> start any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder >>> will ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download >>> Java 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. >>> ___ >>> 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk >>> >>> This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk >>> >> ___ >> 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%40pobox.com >> >> This email sent to msch...@pobox.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/lists%40thetimmy.com > > This email sent to li...@thetimmy.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
Ah yes, I forgot. You have to change the wotaskd and JavaMonitor launchd scripts so that the user is "_appserver", not "appserver" (in the script, not for the owner of the script), if you don't do it, they won't be started. > On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Pascal Robert wrote: > >> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO >> adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start >> any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will >> ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download Java >> 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. >> ___ >> 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/jmb%40paperfree.net >> >> This email sent to j...@paperfree.net >> > ___ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
oh, rub it in. On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Paul D Yu wrote: > SSD makes the process go really fast. Spinning disk? not so much... ___ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
I've upgraded my primary client development machine and it works just fine. Upgrading the second one now. SSD makes the process go really fast. Spinning disk? not so much... Paul On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: > what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? > > On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: >> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO >> adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start >> any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will >> ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download Java >> 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. >> ___ >> 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk >> >> This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk >> > ___ > 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/pyu%40mac.com > > This email sent to p...@mac.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
yes, long ago .. works fine. On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote: > what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? > > On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: >> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO >> adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start >> any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will >> ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download Java >> 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. >> ___ >> 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk >> >> This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk >> > ___ > 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%40pobox.com > > This email sent to msch...@pobox.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ? On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote: > Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini Server > and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO adaptor > compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start any Java > process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will ask you if > you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download Java 1.6 (from > Apple) and install it. ___ > 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/simon%40potwells.co.uk > > This email sent to si...@potwells.co.uk > ___ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
So far I've encountered Wonder bar stops working after taking Safari to full screen. And for those who use sqlplus to connect to ORACLE at the command line you get "Segmentation fault: 11". I searched google and others are having the same problem but I don't see a fix by ORACLE. On Jul 20, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Joel M. Benisch wrote: > Nice... :-) > > Thanks for letting us all know. > -- > Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President > 973-992-6300 x303 > PaperFree Corporation > 973-992- FAX > 909 Regal Boulevard > j...@paperfree.net > Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Pascal Robert wrote: > >> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini >> Server and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO >> adaptor compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start >> any Java process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will >> ask you if you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download Java >> 1.6 (from Apple) and install it. >> ___ >> 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/jmb%40paperfree.net >> >> This email sent to j...@paperfree.net >> > > ___ > 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/rparada%40mac.com > > This email sent to rpar...@mac.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
Nice... :-) Thanks for letting us all know. -- Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President 973-992-6300 x303 PaperFree Corporation 973-992- FAX 909 Regal Boulevard j...@paperfree.net Livingston, NJ 07039-8249 WE CREATE PRODUCTS WE WOULD WANT TO USE! On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Pascal Robert wrote: > Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini Server > and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO adaptor > compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start any Java > process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will ask you if > you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download Java 1.6 (from > Apple) and install it. ___ > 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/jmb%40paperfree.net > > This email sent to j...@paperfree.net > ___ 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 arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Lion and WO
and then all else was groovy? On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Pascal Robert wrote: > Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini Server > and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO adaptor > compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start any Java > process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder will ask you if > you want to install Java. If you say so, it will download Java 1.6 (from > Apple) and install it. ___ > 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/jtayler%40oeinc.com > > This email sent to jtay...@oeinc.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 arch...@mail-archive.com
