I would like to add a REST interface to an existing TCL codebase (so that the programms in other language can use the existing TCL code).
I found a list of Webserver with TCL support but I have no idea which one would be a good solution to quickly map our TCL functions to HTTP/REST calls without tons of boilerplate code.
Has anyone here already done something like this and can tell me which of these servers would be a good (or bad/difficult) solution?
Is there maybe another server/framework that is even better for this use case?
Consider Naviserver. Tcl is its embedded interpreter language. It has a low profile memory overhead, and is regularly maintained and tested for performance and low latency.
For what you’re describing, you might consider Wapp. It’ll do exactly the boilerplate elimination you want, and it’s easy to dive into. You’d probably want to use it as a library, rather than an app, given that you’ve got an existing codebase, but its operation past the initial setup is the same for that use case.
Related
I have not used libbpf in a while. Now, when I'm looking at the source code and examples, it looks to me that all API now is built around bpf_object while before it was based on program FD (at least on the user-facing level). I believe that fd is now hidden in bpf_object or such.
Of course it keeps backward compatibility and I still can use bpf_prog_load for example, however it looks like the preferred way of writing application code using libbpf is by bpf_object API?
Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks!
Sounds mostly correct to me.
Low-Level Wrappers
If I remember correctly, the functions returning file descriptors in libbpf, mostly defined in tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c, have always been very low-level. This is the case for bpf_load_program() for example, which is no more than a wrapper around the bpf() system call for loading programs. Such functions are still available, but their use may be tedious for complex use cases.
bpf_prog_load()
Some more advanced functions have long been provided. bpf_prog_load(), that you mention, is one of them, but it returns an error code, not a file descriptor. It is still available as one option to load programs with the library.
bpf_object__*()
Although I don't think there are strict guidelines, I believe it is true that most example now use the bpf_object__*() function. One reason is that they provide a more consistent user experience, being organised around the manipulation of an object file to extract all the relevant bytecode and metadata, and then to load and attach the program. One other reason, I think, is that since this model has been favoured over the last releases, these functions have better support for recent eBPF features and the bpf_object__*() functions offer features that the older bpf_prog_load() workflow does not support.
Libbpf Evolves
At last, it's worth mentioning that libbpf's API is currently undergoing some review and will likely be reworked as part of a major v1.0 release. You may want to have a look at the work document linked in the announcement: Some bpf_object__ functions may be deprecated, and similarly there is currently a proposal to:
Deprecate bpf_prog_load() and bpf_prog_load_xattr() in favor of bpf_object__open_{mem, file}() and bpf_object__load() combo.
There is nothing certain yet regarding the v1.0 release, so I wouldn't worry too much about “deprecation” at the moment - I don't expect all functions to be removed just yet. But that's something you may want to consider when building your next applications.
looking into connecting to a secure ftp site (using perl), and downloading all the .log files, saving in new directories named after the day I downloaded the files. I want to do this without modules, as a learning experience, but before I start I wanted to know if you guys thought it was doing, or is way too much for a relatively new programmer and I should just learn the modules?
If it's production work, no, use the modules. Your implementation will be buggy, missing features and unknown to the next person maintaining that code.
Otherwise, yes. It's good to learn the principles of a network protocol. I do have a reservation about FTP as it is a bit baroque, insecure, inefficient and on its way out. scp, HTTP or rsync would be more useful to put your energy into.
I'd start with reading the RFC and putting together your own FTP module using just network sockets. Document and test it as if you were going to release to CPAN as a full learning exercise in making a network module. Run it against some various FTP server implementations as they often interpret the spec differently (or not at all). Don't be afraid to cheat and look at what the existing modules do. Who knows, you might write something better than what's already there.
Learning the principals, just like we did at school for long multiplication and division, means we know how things work when we use a short hand.
However, when new to the world,just like when you learn to speak, you did "A is for Apple" etc, you didnt get explained about the finesse of grammar and all that, you learnt to express yourself enough to be understood.
Programming is a little like the same. While in an ideal world you can easily argue a prewritten generic library is often way less efficient than a specifically targeted set of routines. If the wheel you are using was already invented, it seems a lot of work to make a new one.
So, use the wheels and cogs afailable, once you really have the hang of it, NOW look at inventing your own more efficient ones.
Ad cpan modules:
Modules are an great learning source. Here is zilion modules and you can really learn much studying some of them.
And when/while you mastering your perl, you will start writing you own modules. When your program will use modules anyway (yours one), you can ask - why don't use modules already developed and debugged?
So, learn perl basics, study some modules (for example Net::SFTP) and if you still want write your own solution - it is up to you. :)
'
I am looking at linking a few applications together (all written in different languages like C#, C++, Python) and I am not sure how to go about it.
What I mean by linking? The system I am working on consists of small programs each responsible for a particular processing task. I need to be able to transfer a data set from one application to another easily (the data set in question is not huge, probably a few megabytes) and I also need some form of way to control the current state of the operation (This is where a client-server model rings a bell)
It seems like sockets or maybe SOAP would be a universal solution but just wanted to get some opinions as to what people think about this subject.
Comments/suggestions will be appreciated, thanks!
I personally take a liking towards ØMQ. It's a library that has a familiar BSD-sockets-like interface for passing messages, but you'll find it implements interesting patterns for distributing tasks.
It sounds like you want to arrange several processes in a pipeline. ØMQ allows you to do that using push and poll sockets. (And afterwards, you'll find it's even possible to scale up across multiple processes and machines with little effort.) Take a look at the guide to get started, and the zmq_socket(3) manpage specifically for how push and pull works.
Bindings are available for all the languages you mention.
As for the contents of the message, ØMQ doesn't concern itself with that, they are just blocks of raw data. You can use any format that suits you, such as JSON, or perhaps Protocol Buffers.
What I'm not sure about is the ‘controlling state’ you mention. Are you interested in, for example, cancelling a job halfway through?
For C# to C# you can use Windows Communication Foundation. You may be able to use it with Python and C++ as well.
You may also want to checkout named pipes.
I would think about moving to a model where you eliminate the issue by having centralized data that all of the applications look at. Keep "one source of the truth" so to speak.
Most outside software has trouble linking against C++ code, due to the name-mangling algorithm it uses for its symbols. For that reason, when interfacing with programs written in other languages, it is often best to declare wrappers to things as extern "C" or inside an extern "C" { block.
I need to be able to transfer a data set from one application to another easily (the data set in question is not huge, probably a few megabytes)
Use the file system.
and I also need some form of way to control the current state of the operation
Again, use the file system. A "current_state.json" file with a JSON serialized object is perfect for multiple languages to work with.
It seems like sockets or maybe SOAP would be a universal solution.
Perhaps. But it's overkill for this kind of thing. Your OS already has all the facilities you need. Just use the file system. It's very simple and very reliable.
There are many ways to do interprocess communication. As you said, sockets may be a universal solution. SOAP, i think, is somewhat an overkill. You may also use mailslots. I wrote C++ application using it a couple of years ago. Named pipes could be also a solution, but if you are coding on Windows, it may be difficult.
In my opinion:
Sockets
Mailslots
Are the best candidates.
i have a big web application running in perl CGI. It's running ok, it's well written, but as it was done in the past, all the html are defined hardcoded in the CGI calls, so as you could imagine, it's hard to mantain, improve and etc. So now i would like to start to add some templating and integrate with a framework (catalyst or CGI::application). My question is: Somebody here has an experience like that? There is any things that i must pay attention for? I'm aware that with both frameworks i can run native CGI scripts, so it's good because i can run both (CGI native ad "frameworked" code) together without any trauma. Any tips?
Write tests first (for example with Test::WWW::Mechanize). Then when you change things you always know if something breaks, and what it is that breaks.
Then extract HTML into templates, and commonly used subs into modules. After that it's a piece of cake to switch to a framework.
In general, go step by step so that you always have a working application.
Extricate the HTML from the processing logic in the CGI script. Identify all code that affects the HTML output, as these are candidates for becoming template variables. Separate that into a HTML file, with the identified parts marked with template variables. Eventually you will be able to refactor the page such that all processing is done at the start of the code and the HTML template just called up at the end of all processing.
In this kind of situation, rewriting from scratch basically, the old code is useful for A) testing, and B) design details. Ideally you'd make a set of tests, for all the basic functionality that you want to replicate, or at least tests that parse the final result pages so you can see the new code is returning the same information for the same inputs.
Design details within the code might be useless, depending on how much the framework handles automatically. If you have a good set of tests, and a straightforward conversion works well, you're done. If the behavior of the new doesn't match the old, you probably need to dig deeper into the "why?" and that'll probably be something odd looking, that doesn't make sense at first glance.
One thing to remember to do first is, find out if anyone has made something similar in the framework you're using. You could save yourself a LOT of time and money.
Here is how I did it using Python instead of Perl, but that should not matter:
Separated out HTML and code into distinct files. I used a template engine for that.
Created functions from the code which rendered a template with a set of parameters.
Organized the functions (which I termed views, inspired by Django) in a sensible way. (Admin views, User views, etc.) The views all follow the same calling convention!
Refactored out the database and request stuff so that the views would only contain view specific code (read: Handling GET, POST requests, etc. but nothing low-level!). Relied heavily on existing libraries for that.
I am here at the moment. :-) The next obvious step is of course:
Write a dispatcher which maps URLs to your views. This will also lead to nicer URLs and nicer 404- and error handling of course.
One of the assumptions that frameworks make is that the urls map to the code. For example in a framework you'll often see the following:
http://app.com/docs/list
http://app.com/docs/view/123
Usually though the old CGI scripts don't work like that, you're more likely to have something like:
http://app.com/docs.cgi?action=view&id=123
To take advantage of the framework you may well need to change all the urls. Whether you can do this, and how you keep old links working, may well form a large part of your decision.
Also frameworks provide support for some sort of ORM (object relational mapper) which abstracts the database calls and lets you only deal with objects. For Catalyst this is usually DBIx::Class. You should evaluate what the cost of switching to this will be.
You'll probably find that you want to do a complete rewrite, with the old code as a reference platform. This may be much less work than you expect. However start with a few toy sites to get a feel for whichever framework/orm/template you decide to go with.
Is there a general procedure for programming extensibility capability into your code?
I am wondering what the general procedure is for adding extension-type capability to a system you are writing so that functionality can be extended through some kind of plugin API rather than having to modify the core code of a system.
Do such things tend to be dependent on the language the system was written in, or is there a general method for allowing for this?
I've used event-based APIs for plugins in the past. You can insert hooks for plugins by dispatching events and providing access to the application state.
For example, if you were writing a blogging application, you might want to raise an event just before a new post is saved to the database, and provide the post HTML to the plugin to alter as needed.
This is generally something that you'll have to expose yourself, so yes, it will be dependent on the language your system is written in (though often it's possible to write wrappers for other languages as well).
If, for example, you had a program written in C, for Windows, plugins would be written for your program as DLLs. At runtime, you would manually load these DLLs, and expose some interface to them. For example, the DLLs might expose a gimme_the_interface() function which could accept a structure filled with function pointers. These function pointers would allow the DLL to make calls, register callbacks, etc.
If you were in C++, you would use the DLL system, except you would probably pass an object pointer instead of a struct, and the object would implement an interface which provided functionality (accomplishing the same thing as the struct, but less ugly). For Java, you would load class files on-demand instead of DLLs, but the basic idea would be the same.
In all cases, you'll need to define a standard interface between your code and the plugins, so that you can initialize the plugins, and so the plugins can interact with you.
P.S. If you'd like to see a good example of a C++ plugin system, check out the foobar2000 SDK. I haven't used it in quite a while, but it used to be really well done. I assume it still is.
I'm tempted to point you to the Design Patterns book for this generic question :p
Seriously, I think the answer is no. You can't write extensible code by default, it will be both hard to write/extend and awfully inefficient (Mozilla started with the idea of being very extensible, used XPCOM everywhere, and now they realized it was a mistake and started to remove it where it doesn't make sense).
what makes sense to do is to identify the pieces of your system that can be meaningfully extended and support a proper API for these cases (e.g. language support plug-ins in an editor). You'd use the relevant patterns, but the specific implementation depends on your platform/language choice.
IMO, it also helps to use a dynamic language - makes it possible to tweak the core code at run time (when absolutely necessary). I appreciated that Mozilla's extensibility works that way when writing Firefox extensions.
I think there are two aspects to your question:
The design of the system to be extendable (the design patterns, inversion of control and other architectural aspects) (http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html). And, at least to me, yes these patterns/techniques are platform/language independent and can be seen as a "general procedure".
Now, their implementation is language and platform dependend (for example in C/C++ you have the dynamic library stuff, etc.)
Several 'frameworks' have been developed to give you a programming environment that provides you pluggability/extensibility but as some other people mention, don't get too crazy making everything pluggable.
In the Java world a good specification to look is OSGi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSGi) with several implementations the best one IMHO being Equinox (http://www.eclipse.org/equinox/)
Find out what minimum requrements you want to put on a plugin writer. Then make one or more Interfaces that the writer must implement for your code to know when and where to execute the code.
Make an API the writer can use to access some of the functionality in your code.
You could also make a base class the writer must inherit. This will make wiring up the API easier. Then use some kind of reflection to scan a directory, and load the classes you find that matches your requirements.
Some people also make a scripting language for their system, or implements an interpreter for a subset of an existing language. This is also a possible route to go.
Bottom line is: When you get the code to load, only your imagination should be able to stop you.
Good luck.
If you are using a compiled language such as C or C++, it may be a good idea to look at plugin support via scripting languages. Both Python and Lua are excellent languages that are used to script a large number of applications (Civ4 and blender use Python, Supreme Commander uses Lua, etc).
If you are using C++, check out the boost python library. Otherwise, python ships with headers that can be used in C, and does a fairly good job documenting the C/python API. The documentation seemed less complete for Lua, but I may not have been looking hard enough. Either way, you can offer a fairly solid scripting platform without a terrible amount of work. It still isn't trivial, but it provides you with a very good base to work from.