Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
On 5-Apr-08, at 4:19 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: Angry - no - why would I be angry? Annoyed I am not getting the utility out of Time Machine I would expect, and disturbed all my files archived in Yojimbo are in one big opaque file - yes. (broken record reply, sorry) It's unfortunate that Apple didn't deliver a Core Data solution (to third-party developers) for proper Time Machine operation, but the onus is on Apple to fix this one. You have the option of _not_ using Time Machine where it doesn't make sense. Apple gave you that option, and it would make sense to use it in this case. Exclude the Yojimbo data store from being backed up and implement a different backup strategy. Problem solved. However, as a software architect, I agree with you on the big opaque file paradigm... in my databases, I store a record of an archived file in the database, but then the file separately. That reduces the size of the database tremendously, still provides adequate performance and indexing capabilities, and would be more compatible with Time Machine. So, I think there's room for a middle-ground solution. ~Ted -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
On 4-Apr-08, at 3:02 PM, Rich Siegel wrote: I suggest BareBones consider moving their data store out of the sqlite database and store Yojimbo entries onto the file system. The time machine backups are getting rather large when the whole database is backed up. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Yojimbo uses Core Data, which is a subsystem supplied by the OS for precisely the sort of data storage needs that Yojimbo has. The fact that Core Data uses sqlite is an implementation detail and is, by design, abstracted away from Core Data clients. Since Core Data is a fundamental part of the OS, we leave it to Apple to make sure that it plays nicely with other relevant OS components. Since Time Machine is brand new and there are still lots of angles to figure out, I have every confidence that in the long term, Time Machine will evolve as necessary to accommodate the needs of Core Data clients. From and uses perspective, Yojimbo is clearly missing the need for integration with state of the art backup available in Leopard - files that are changed are backed up. I am really not interested in whether you built Yobjimbo with CoreData and XML and C# and some thread pools or whatever. Leopard has been out a long time. Doug R. -- Rich Siegel Bare Bones Software, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:// www.barebones.com/ Someday I'll look back on all this and laugh... until they sedate me. -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
On Apr 5, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: On 4-Apr-08, at 3:02 PM, Rich Siegel wrote: I suggest BareBones consider moving their data store out of the sqlite database and store Yojimbo entries onto the file system. The time machine backups are getting rather large when the whole database is backed up. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Yojimbo uses Core Data, which is a subsystem supplied by the OS for precisely the sort of data storage needs that Yojimbo has. The fact that Core Data uses sqlite is an implementation detail and is, by design, abstracted away from Core Data clients. Since Core Data is a fundamental part of the OS, we leave it to Apple to make sure that it plays nicely with other relevant OS components. Since Time Machine is brand new and there are still lots of angles to figure out, I have every confidence that in the long term, Time Machine will evolve as necessary to accommodate the needs of Core Data clients. From and uses perspective, Yojimbo is clearly missing the need for integration with state of the art backup available in Leopard - files that are changed are backed up. I am really not interested in whether you built Yobjimbo with CoreData and XML and C# and some thread pools or whatever. Leopard has been out a long time. Doug Leopard has been out a long time ? Less than a year is not a long time, unless you are a toddler. I suspect you did not read Rich's reply carefully, or you did not understand it. Bare Bones built Yojimbo on top of Apple's technologies. It's reasonable for them to expect that Apple's subsequent technologies would be compatible or will be eventually made to be compatible. If you aren't interested in reading the answer, why did you ask the question in the first place? You were technologically prescriptive in your question, and then you get angry because their answer is explicit? I think that Rich's response was appropriate. You are starting to sound like you want a pony. Thanks Robert Occhialini -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
Didn't mean to be prescriptive. I am not a programmer and could care less about core data or whatever. Certainly I have some understanding of technology and it seems bizarre that no release has been forthcoming that plays well with Time Machine - it certainly is an indication Core Data is the wrong tool for the job. I am sure Apple has all sorts of tech that is or isn't appropriate for various applications. I often wonder if the Apple file system technology that comes with OSX would have been the right tool for Yojimbo (I only started to wonder when I was surprised to find out it wasn't the underlying tech for yojimbo other than storing one big blob). I would have expected Yojimbo to play well with RSync before leopard (and assumed it was), and now with Time Machine, the size of the backups is rather large (and i am hopeful the yojimbo archive is not corrupt). If you/they are waiting for apple to make Core Data practical for time machine compatibility, I saw this on WIkipedia (so it might be true): Core Data can serialize objects into XML, Binary, or SQLite for storage. With the release of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, developers can also create their own custom atomic store types. . Any application to the problem at hand? Angry - no - why would I be angry? Annoyed I am not getting the utility out of Time Machine I would expect, and disturbed all my files archived in Yojimbo are in one big opaque file - yes. Doug On 5-Apr-08, at 2:56 PM, Robert Occhialini Jr. wrote: On Apr 5, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: On 4-Apr-08, at 3:02 PM, Rich Siegel wrote: I suggest BareBones consider moving their data store out of the sqlite database and store Yojimbo entries onto the file system. The time machine backups are getting rather large when the whole database is backed up. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Yojimbo uses Core Data, which is a subsystem supplied by the OS for precisely the sort of data storage needs that Yojimbo has. The fact that Core Data uses sqlite is an implementation detail and is, by design, abstracted away from Core Data clients. Since Core Data is a fundamental part of the OS, we leave it to Apple to make sure that it plays nicely with other relevant OS components. Since Time Machine is brand new and there are still lots of angles to figure out, I have every confidence that in the long term, Time Machine will evolve as necessary to accommodate the needs of Core Data clients. From and uses perspective, Yojimbo is clearly missing the need for integration with state of the art backup available in Leopard - files that are changed are backed up. I am really not interested in whether you built Yobjimbo with CoreData and XML and C# and some thread pools or whatever. Leopard has been out a long time. Doug Leopard has been out a long time ? Less than a year is not a long time, unless you are a toddler. I suspect you did not read Rich's reply carefully, or you did not understand it. Bare Bones built Yojimbo on top of Apple's technologies. It's reasonable for them to expect that Apple's subsequent technologies would be compatible or will be eventually made to be compatible. If you aren't interested in reading the answer, why did you ask the question in the first place? You were technologically prescriptive in your question, and then you get angry because their answer is explicit? I think that Rich's response was appropriate. You are starting to sound like you want a pony. Thanks Robert Occhialini -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's workingcorrectly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
Doug, The types of Core Data stores currently available are XML, SQLite, Custom Atomic, and In Memory (which must be binary) on Wikipedia. The XML store is best used for debugging since it's just a text file that is human readable. It could be used for storing small amounts of data, but it would be far too slow for storing the web, PDF, and image data that Yojimbo is capable of. The In Memory store would solve your large Time Machine backups since none of your data would be backed up (since all your Yojimbo data would be in RAM), but every time you quit Yojimbo you'd lose all your data. Again, not a good choice. The downside of the Custom Atomic store (and also the XML format) is that by atomic Apple means that every time a change is saved to the Core Data store, the entire object graph is rewritten to the store. Again, for large Yojimbo databases this would be impractical. SQLite offers MUCH better performance than XML or a Custom Atomic store, and also offers partial updates so when something is added, removed, or changed in your Yojimbo library the entire object graph doesn't have to be rewritten to disk, only what has changed. With how cheap disk space is these days, I'd rather the developers at Bare Bones focus on adding more great features instead of writing a custom Core Data store or worry about storing Yojimbo items as individual files. - Steve On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: Core Data can serialize objects into XML, Binary, or SQLite for storage. With the release of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, developers can also create their own custom atomic store types. . Any application to the problem at hand? -- Steven Huey Software - http://www.stevenhuey.com -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to change the data store to play with time machine?
Hmm, I'm new to this. I'd like Yj to update only what was changed, but it sounds as if the available options don't allow that. I think Doug (correct me if I am wrong) was wanting just such a thing to keep up efficient use of disk space--the cheapness of price is relative :) My Yj backup is 13 gig when I make major changes, like a system or account restore, and would prohibit buying new drives. I am out of luck, I think, and concur spending time on new features( like, say, an option to flag a new item in the Quick Input Panel ;)) is a better use of time. On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Steven Huey wrote: Doug, The types of Core Data stores currently available are XML, SQLite, Custom Atomic, and In Memory (which must be binary) on Wikipedia. The XML store is best used for debugging since it's just a text file that is human readable. It could be used for storing small amounts of data, but it would be far too slow for storing the web, PDF, and image data that Yojimbo is capable of. The In Memory store would solve your large Time Machine backups since none of your data would be backed up (since all your Yojimbo data would be in RAM), but every time you quit Yojimbo you'd lose all your data. Again, not a good choice. The downside of the Custom Atomic store (and also the XML format) is that by atomic Apple means that every time a change is saved to the Core Data store, the entire object graph is rewritten to the store. Again, for large Yojimbo databases this would be impractical. SQLite offers MUCH better performance than XML or a Custom Atomic store, and also offers partial updates so when something is added, removed, or changed in your Yojimbo library the entire object graph doesn't have to be rewritten to disk, only what has changed. With how cheap disk space is these days, I'd rather the developers at Bare Bones focus on adding more great features instead of writing a custom Core Data store or worry about storing Yojimbo items as individual files. - Steve On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Doug Ransom wrote: Core Data can serialize objects into XML, Binary, or SQLite for storage. With the release of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, developers can also create their own custom atomic store types. . Any application to the problem at hand? -- Steven Huey Software - http://www.stevenhuey.com -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's workingcorrectly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list yojimbo-talk@barebones.com. To unsubscribe, send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List archives: http://www.listsearch.com/yojimbotalk.lasso Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly? Please send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
