Context
Greetings,
One day I randomly found RethinkDB and I was really fascinated by the whole real-time changes thing. In order to learn how to use this tool I quickly spinned up a container running RethinkDB and i started making a small project. I wanted to make something very simple therefore i thought about creating a service in which speakers can create room and the audience can ask questions. Other users can upvote questions in order to let the speaker know which one are the best. Obviously this project has a lot of realtime needs that i believe are best satisfied by using RethinkDB.
Design
I wanted to use a vary specific set of tools for this. The backend would be made in Laravel Lumen, the frontend in Vue.JS and the database of course would be RethinkDB.
The problem
RethinkDB as it seems is not designed to be exposed to the end user directly despite the fact that no security concern exists.
Assuming that the user only needs to see the questions and the upvoted in real time, no write permissions are needed and if a user changed the room ID nothing bad will happen since the rooms are all publicly accessible.
Therefore something is needed in order to await data updates and push it through a socket to the client (socket.io for example or pusher).
Given the fact that the backend is written in PHP i cannot tell Lumen to stay awake and wait for data updates. From what i have seen from the online tutorials a secondary system should be used that should listen for changes and then push them. (lets say a node.js service for example)
This is understandable however i strongly believe that this way of transferring the data to the user is inefficient and it defeats the purpose of RethinkDB.
If I have to send the action from the client's computer (user asks a question), save it to the database, have a script that listens for changes, then push the changes to socket.io and finally have the client (vue.js) act when a new event arrives, what is the point of having a real-time database in the first place?
I could avoid all this headache simply by having the Lumen app push the event directly to socket.io and user any other database system instead.
I really cant understand the point of all this. I am not experienced with no-sql databases by any means but i really want to experiment with them.
Thank you.
This is understandable however i strongly believe that this way of transferring the data to the user is inefficient and it defeats the purpose of RethinkDB.
RethinkDB has no built in mechanism to transfer data to end-users. It has no access control (in the conventional sense) as well. The common way, like you said, is to spin up one / multiple node instance(s) running socket.io. On each instance you can listen on your RethinkDB change streams and use socket.io's broadcast functionality. This would be a common way, but as RethinkDB's streams are pretty optimized, you could also open a change stream for every incoming socket.io connection.
Related
I have 2 closed-source application that must share the same data at some point. Both uses REST APIs.
An actual example are helpdesk tickets, they can be created on both applications and i need to update the data on one application when the user adds a new ticket/closes a ticket on the other application and vice versa.
Since is closed-source I can't really modify che code.
I was thinking I can create a third application that every 5 minutes or so, list both applications' tickets for differences on the precedent call, and if the data is different from the precedent call it updates the other application too.
Is there a better way of doing this?
With closed-source applications it's nearly impossible to get something out of them, unless they have some plugin-based setup that you can hook into.
The most efficient way in terms of costs would be to have the first application publish a message on a queue, or call a web-hook that you set, whenever the event is triggered. But as I mentioned, the application needs to support that.
So yeah, your solution is pretty much everything you can do for now, but keep in mind the challenges that you may encounter over time:
What if the results of both APIs are too large to be compared directly? Maybe you need to think about paging the results.
What if your app crashes and you loose the previous state? You need to somehow back it up in an external source
How often you should poll the API to make sure you're getting the updates you need, while keeping a good performance for the existing traffic?
I´m going to create a web service for learning purposes and wanted to combine it with my WoW Hobby. My goal would be to create a "simple" Addon, which tracks my battleground activity in real time.
So when queuing for AB it enters my data in an db and when I´m out of the BG it should delete the db entry. The information should be stored in an JSON/XML-File and whenever the bg-status changes it should execute the post/update on the DB on the RESTful service.
The real time communication is very important here and I would like to know which ways of communicating to a web service are available, so I could directly dive in and create a solution.I´d like to have resources instead of solutions.
Currently I´m not used to LUA, but would like to learn it to get the knowledge of creating such a service.Which sites are you suggesting for learning LUA, especially the WoW-API?
Addons only write to disk when you log out of a character (and read that saved data when you log in) so what you intend would not be possible.*
More involved ways of communicating with the rest of the computer or even the internet are prohibited to prevent the gain of certain advantages, an example would be looking up details about your Arena opponents.
* Well, there are certainly some ways, but rather complicated ones: a program monitoring sound output to check when the BG queue pop sound is played, or a screengrabber that registers when the BG score screen comes up (which can be viewed during the match though, too)
Can people give me examples of why they would use coreData in an application?
I ask this because most apps are just clients to a central server where an API of some sort gives you the information you need.
In my case I'm writing a timesheet application for a web app which has an API and I'm debating if there is any value in replicating the data structure on my server in core data(Sqlite)
e.g
Project has many timesheets
employee has many timesheets
It seems to me that I can just connect to the API on every call for lists of projects or existing timesheets for example.
I realize for some kind of offline mode you could store locally in core data but this creates way more problems because you now have a big problem with syncing that data back to the web server when you get connection again.. e.g. the project selected for a timesheet no longer exists.
Can any experienced developer shed some light on there experiences on when core data is best practice approach?
EDIT
I realise of course there is value in storing local persistance but the key value of user defaults seems to cover most applications I can think of.
You shouldn't think of CoreData simply as an SQLite database. It's not JUST an SQLite database. Sure, SQLite is an option, but there are other options as well, such as in-memory and, as of iOS5, a whole slew of custom data stores. The biggest benefit with CoreData is persistence, obviously. But even if you are using an in-memory data store, you get the benefits of a very well structured object graph, and all of the heavy lifting with regards to pulling information out of or putting information into the data store is handled by CoreData for you, without you necessarily needing to concern yourself with what is backing that data store. Sure, today you don't care too much about persistence, so you could use an in-memory data store. What happens if tomorrow, or in a month, or a year, you decide to add a feature that would really benefit from persistence? With CoreData, you simply change or add a persistent data store, and all of your methods to get information out or in remain unchanged. The overhead for that sort of addition is minimal in comparison to if you were trying to access SQLite or some other data store directly. IMHO, that's the biggest benefit: abstraction. And, in essence, abstraction is one of the most powerful things behind OOP. Granted, building the Data Model just for in-memory storage could be overkill for your app, depending on how involved the app is. But, just as a side note, you may want to consider what is faster: Requesting information from your web service every time you want to perform some action, or requesting the information once, storing it in memory, and acting on that stored value for the remainder of the session. An in-memory data store wouldn't persistent beyond that particular session.
Additionally, with CoreData you get a lot of other great features like saving, fetching, and undo-redo.
There are basically two kinds of apps. Those that provide you with local functionality (games, professional applications, navigation systems...) and those that grant access to a remote service.
Your app seems to be in the second category. If you access remote services, your users will want to access new or real-time data (you don't want to read 2 week old Facebook posts) but in some cases, local caching makes sense (e.g. reading your mails when you're on the train with unstable network).
I assume that the value of accessing cached entries when not connected to a network is pretty low for your customers (internal or external) compared to the importance of accessing real-time-data. So local storage might be not necessary at all.
If you don't have hundreds of entries in your timetable, "normal" serialization (NSCoding-protocol) might be enough. If you only access some "dashboard-data", you will be able to get along with simple request/response-caching (NSURLCache can do a lot of things...).
Core Data does make more sense if you have complex data structures which should be synchronized with a server. This adds a lot of synchronization logic to your project as well as complexity from Core Data integration (concurrency, thread-safety, in-app-conflicts...).
If you want to create a "client"-app with a server driven user experience, local storage is not necessary at all so my suggestion is: Keep it as simple as possible unless there is a real need for offline storage.
It's ideal for if you want to store data locally on the phone.
Seriously though, if you can't see a need for it for your timesheet app, then don't worry about it and don't use it.
Solving the sync problems that you would have with an "offline" mode would be detailed in your design of your app. For example - don't allow projects to be deleted. Why would you? Wouldn't you want to go back in time and look at previous data for particular projects? Instead just have a marker on the project to show it as inactive and a date/time that it was made inactive. If the data that is being synced from the device is for that project and is before the date/time that it was marked as inactive, then it's fine to sync. Otherwise display a message and the user will have to sort it.
It depends purely on your application's design whether you need to store some data locally or not, if it is a real problem or a thin GUI client around your web service. Apart from "offline" mode the other reason to cache server data on client side might be to take traffic load from your server. Just think what does it mean for your server to send every time the whole timesheet data to the client, or just the changes. Yes, it means more implementation on both side, but in some cases it has serious advantages.
EDIT: example added
You have 1000 records per user in your timesheet application and one record is cca 1 kbyte. In this case every time a user starts your application, it has to fetch ~1Mbyte data from your server. If you cache the data locally, the server can tell you that let's say two records were updated since your last update, so you'll have to download only 2 kbyte. Now you should scale up this for several tens of thousands of user and you will immediately notice the difference of the server bandwidth and CPU usage.
I am writing an app for iOS that uses data provided by a web service. I am using core data for local storage and persistence of the data, so that some core set of the data is available to the user if the web is not reachable.
In building this app, I've been reading lots of posts about core data. While there seems to be lots out there on the mechanics of doing this, I've seen less on the general principles/patterns for this.
I am wondering if there are some good references out there for a recommended interaction model.
For example, the user will be able to create new objects on the app. Lets say the user creates a new employee object, the user will typically create it, update it and then save it. I've seen recommendations that updates each of these steps to the server --> when the user creates it, when the user makes changes to the fields. And if the user cancels at the end, a delete is sent to the server. Another different recommendation for the same operation is to keep everything locally, and only send the complete update to the server when the user saves.
This example aside, I am curious if there are some general recommendations/patterns on how to handle CRUD operations and ensure they are sync'd between the webserver and coredata.
Thanks much.
I think the best approach in the case you mention is to store data only locally until the point the user commits the adding of the new record. Sending every field edit to the server is somewhat excessive.
A general idiom of iPhone apps is that there isn't such a thing as "Save". The user generally will expect things to be committed at some sensible point, but it isn't presented to the user as saving per se.
So, for example, imagine you have a UI that lets the user edit some sort of record that will be saved to local core data and also be sent to the server. At the point the user exits the UI for creating a new record, they will perhaps hit a button called "Done" (N.B. not usually called "Save"). At the point they hit "Done", you'll want to kick off a core data write and also start a push to the remote server. The server pus h won't necessarily hog the UI or make them wait till it completes -- it's nicer to allow them to continue using the app -- but it is happening. If the update push to server failed, you might want to signal it to the user or do something appropriate.
A good question to ask yourself when planning the granularity of writes to core data and/or a remote server is: what would happen if the app crashed out, or the phone ran out of power, at any particular spots in the app? How much loss of data could possibly occur? Good apps lower the risk of data loss and can re-launch in a very similar state to what they were previously in after being exited for whatever reason.
Be prepared to tear your hair out quite a bit. I've been working on this, and the problem is that the Core Data samples are quite simple. The minute you move to a complex model and you try to use the NSFetchedResultsController and its delegate, you bump into all sorts of problems with using multiple contexts.
I use one to populate data from your webservice in a background "block", and a second for the tableview to use - you'll most likely end up using a tableview for a master list and a detail view.
Brush up on using blocks in Cocoa if you want to keep your app responsive whilst receiving or sending data to/from a server.
You might want to read about 'transactions' - which is basically the grouping of multiple actions/changes as a single atomic action/change. This helps avoid partial saves that might result in inconsistent data on server.
Ultimately, this is a very big topic - especially if server data is shared across multiple clients. At the simplest, you would want to decide on basic policies. Does last save win? Is there some notion of remotely held locks on objects in server data store? How is conflict resolved, when two clients are, say, editing the same property of the same object?
With respect to how things are done on the iPhone, I would agree with occulus that "Done" provides a natural point for persisting changes to server (in a separate thread).
I'm working on an iPhone application that should work in offline and online modes.
In it's online mode it's supposed to feed all the information the user enters to a webservice backed by GWT/GAE.
In it's offline mode it's supposed to store the information locally, and when connection is available sync it up to the web service.
Currently my plan is as follows:
Provide a connection between an app and a webservice using Protobuffers for efficient over-the-wire communication
Work with local DB using Core Data
Poll the network status, and when available sync the database and keep some sort of local-db-to-remote-db key synchronization.
The question is - am I in the right direction? Are the standard patterns for implementing this? Maybe someone can point me to an open-source application that works in a similar fashion?
I am really new to iPhone coding, and would be very glad to hear any suggestions.
Thanks
I think you've blurring the questions together.
If you've got a question about making a GWT web interface, that's one question.
Questions about how to sync an iPhone to a web service are a different question. For that, you don't want to use GWT's RPCs for syncing, as you'd have to fake out the 'browser-side' of the serialization system in your iPhone code, which GWT normally provides for you.
about system design direction:
First if there is no REAL need do not create 2 different apps one GWT and other iPhone
create one but well written GWT app. It will work off line no problem and will manage your data using HTML feature -- offline application cache
If it a must to create 2 separate apps
than at least save yourself effort and do not write server twice as if you go with standard GWT aproach you will almost sertanly fail to talk to server from stand alone app (it is zipped JSON over HTTP with some tricky headers...) or will write things twise so look in to the RestLet library it well supported by the GAE.
About the way to keep sync with offline / online switching:
There are several aproaches to consider and all of them are not perfect. So when you conseder yours think of what youser expects... Do not be Microsoft Word do not try to outsmart the user.
If there at least one scenario in the use cases that demand user intervention to merge changes (And there will be - take it to the bank) - than you will have implement UI for this - than there is a good reason to use it often - user will get used to it. it better than it will see it in a while since he started to use the app because a need fro it is rare because you implemented a super duper merging logic that asks user only in very special cases... Don't do it.
balance the effort. Because the mess that a bug in such code will introduce to user is much more painful than the benefit all together.
so the HOW:
The one way is the Do-UnDo way.
While off line - keep the log of actions user did on data in timed order user did them
as soon as you connected - send to server and execute them. Same from server to client.
Will work fine in most cases as long as you are not writing a Photoshop kind of software with huge amounts of data per operation. Also referred as Action Pattern by the GangOfFour.
Another way is a source control way. - Versions and may be even locks. very application dependent. DBMS internally some times use it for transactions implementations.
And there is always an option to be Read Only when Ofline :-)
Wonder if you have considered using a Sync Framework to manage the synchronization. If that interests you can take a look at the open source project, OpenMobster's Sync service. You can do the following sync operations
two-way
one-way client
one-way device
bootup
Besides that, all modifications are automatically tracked and synced with the Cloud. You can have your app offline when network connection is down. It will track any changes and automatically in the background synchronize it with the cloud when the connection returns. It also provides synchronization like iCloud across multiple devices
Also, modifications in the Cloud are synched using Push notifications, so the data is always current even if it is stored locally.
Here is a link to the open source project: http://openmobster.googlecode.com
Here is a link to iPhone App Sync: http://code.google.com/p/openmobster/wiki/iPhoneSyncApp