I am writing a library that wraps libmemcached.
I noticed that there is an interesting behaviour setting for memcached which says that I can indicate that I do not care about the results of my memcached commands...
It is known as MEMCACHED_BEHAVIOR_NOREPLY. Why would somebody want to use this?
It would be great if someone could point out a few use cases? multi-get / multi-set spring to mind, but I am not clear how this would be useful.
ASCII protocol noreply was a mistake. Don't use it.
Binary protocol noreply can be used to make really awesome optimizations without any loss of correctness.
Related
I'm about to launch into a Lucene.NET implementation and I am concerned about using the PorterStemFilter. Reading here, and reading source code, it appears to be far, far too aggressive for my needs.
I need something simpler that doesn't look for roots but just removes "er", "ed", "s", etc suffixes. From what I've read, KStem would do the trick.
I can't for the life of me find a .NET version of KStem. I can't even find source code for the Java version to handroll a port.
Could someone point me in the right direction?
Looks like it is easy enough to handcraft a reduced PorterStemmer by simply removing steps I don't want. Anyone have success with that?
You could use the HunspellStemmer, part of contrib. It can use freely available hunspell dictionaries to provide proper stemming.
Since the Javadoc doesn't make clear the reason for having com.google.gwt.core.shared.GWT, which seems to contain a functional subset of the com.google.gwt.core.client.GWT, what's the reason for the former to exist?
As its name suggests, shared.GWT is usable on the server-side. GWT.create() doesn't support much things yet but will soon support I18N for instance, and its pluggable.
I've run into a frustrating feature of KVO: all notifications are funneled through a single method (observeValueForKeyPath:....), requiring a bunch of IF statements if the object is observing numerous properties.
The ideal solution would be to pass a method as an argument to the method that establishes the observing in the first place, but it seems this isn't possible. Does a solution exist to this problem? I initially considered using the keyPath argument (addObserver:forKeyPath:options:context:) to call a method via NSSelectorFromString, but then I came across the post KVO Dispatcher pattern with Method as context and the article it linked to which offers a different solution in order to pass arguments along as well (although I haven't gotten that working yet).
I know a lot of people have come up against this issue. Has a standard way of handling it emerged?
OP asks:
Has a standard way of handling it emerged?
No, not really. There are a lot of different approaches out there. Here are some:
https://github.com/sleroux/KVO-Blocks
http://pandamonia.github.io/BlocksKit
http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2012-03-02-key-value-observing-done-right-take-2.html
https://github.com/ReactiveCocoa/ReactiveCocoa
http://blog.andymatuschak.org/post/156229939/kvo-blocks-block-callbacks-for-cocoa-observers
Seriously, there are a ton of these... Google "KVO blocks"
I can't say that any of the options I've seen seem prevalent enough to earn the title "standard way". I suspect most folks who feel motivated to conquer this issue just pick one and go with it, or write their own -- it's not as if adapting KVO to use block based callbacks is rocket science. The Method-based approach you link to doesn't seem like a step forward for simplicity. I get that you're trying to take the uncertainty of the string-based-key-path <-> method conversion out of the equation, but that kind of falls down because not all observable keys/keyPaths are methods. (If nothing else, you can observe arbitrary keys on NSMutableDictionaries and get notifications.)
It sure would be nice if Apple would release a new blocks-based KVO API, but I'm not holding my breath. But in the meantime, like I said, just pick one you like and use it or write your own and use that.
From the current version (0.98) of the Moose::Manual::MooseX are the lines:
We have high hopes for the future of
MooseX::Method::Signatures and
MooseX::Declare. However, these
modules, while used regularly in
production by some of the more insane
members of the community, are still
marked alpha just in case backwards
incompatible changes need to be made.
I noticed that for MooseX::Method::Signatures the change log for September 2009 mentions the removal of the "scary ALPHA disclaimer".
So, are these still "alpha"?
Would I still be considered one of the "more insane" to use them?
I'd say they are production ready - I'm using them in production - but there are several things to consider:
Performance
MooseX::Declare and dependencies do almost all of their magic at compile time. Depending on the size of your program, you might find anywhere from half a second to several seconds of additional initialization overhead. If this a problem, don't use MooseX::Declare.
At runtime, the main overhead is type and argument checking, which you should (ideally) be doing anyway. That said, Moose type constraints have some overheads, namely coercion and the more complex (MooseX::Types::Structured-style) constraints. Don't use these if performance is an issue.
Stability
MooseX::Declare and MooseX::Method::Signature's external syntax is now stable. But it is important to know that the internals are subject to extreme change. (fortunately, changes for the better)
To give you an idea, the signature itself is grabbed using a big block of C code stolen from the Perl tokenizer (toke.c). This can break in some situations since it isn't actually parsing anything. The bit inside the brackets is parsed using PPI, which is designed for pure Perl, but the resulting PPI tree is then hacked up to get something useful. Devel::Declare itself is a hack - after it sees specific keywords (e.g. 'role', 'class', 'method') the Devel::Declare-using module must rewrite the source code by hand, with no interaction with the real Perl parser.
Corner cases may cause Perl to segfault. Or rewrite the source code badly, so you get syntax errors but have no idea what's causing them without -MO::Deparse. If you mess up the MooseX::Declare syntax by accident, there is no guarantee that the module will detect this and give you a sensible error. The ALPHA message may have gone, but this is still doing dark and scary things internally, and you should be prepared for that.
UPDATE
MooseX::Declare has not been updated much, and you may wish to look at alternatives such as Moops. Personally, I have decided to stick with pure Moose until Perl itself begins to support class/method/has syntax natively, which is possibly on the cards.
I think it's a matter of differing perspectives as much as anything -- rafl is one of the aforementioned "more insane members of the community" while Rolsky is more conservative. It's up to you to decide who you agree with, and really I think that the most important variable is your own code.
MooseX::Declare is good code. It won't randomly blow up your machine, it's not awful for performance, and it offers a lot of nifty stuff while reducing the amount of boilerplate that you have to write. But it might change in the future, making your code refuse to compile until it's updated; it might make your editor and other development tools confused when it sees syntax that it can't parse, it might piss off your collaborators by making them learn a new module to work with your code, or it might piss off your boss by making it so any future maintainer has to learn a new module to work with your code. Which of those things apply to you, and to what degree? You know better than I do, I hope.
There are people who feel that the maturity and stability of MooseX::Delcare, Devel::Declare on which it's based, or even Moose itself are not yet ready for "prime time". I also know of two large companies with millions of visitors a month, who have MooseX::Declare in their production environment. I personally am happy with the stack I am provided with Moose and do not see a need yet to bring in MooseX::Declare. I know people who's opinion I deeply respect who refuse to write new code without the declarative sugar from MooseX::Declare.
All of this is to say, the decision on whether something is or is not production ready is highly dependent upon your production environment, your development needs, and taste for risk. Without being in your shoes we can't possibly give an informed decision as to how well any given tool matches that profile.
MooseX::Method::Signatures (MXMS), and MooseX::Declare which uses it, is not production ready. This is not because the code isn't stable, but because it is appallingly slow. Simply using the method keyword, no types or arguments, is a 500-1000x runtime performance hit over a regular method call. My Macbook Pro can do about 6,000 simple method calls per second using MXMS vs 5,000,000 with plain Perl.
Method::Signatures, in contrast, has almost no performance hit above what it would normally cost to do the requested checks. The syntax is almost exactly the same as MXMS and it supports Moose (and Mouse) types. Both rely on the same underlying syntax modifying technique. (Full disclosure, I am the author of Method::Signatures.)
If you like MooseX::Declare but want the performance of Method::Signatures, try Method::Signatures::Modifiers.
It depends on what you mean by "production ready". I wouldn't depend on them until their velocity slows down quite a bit. I like my production stuff to not need frequent care from external code changes, API adjustments, and so on. That's not something particular to Moose, but any young project.
You have to judge how much that matters to you. In some situations, pushing stuff into production is a lengthy process, so you must be circumspect with such things. At the other extreme, some places let you edit files directly on the production server. That is, you have to define your tolerance before anyone can tell you which side a given MooseX module is on.
MooseX::Declare and MooseX::Method::Signatures are working well but they can have really nasty penalty depending on what does your code do. This can be fixed by just not using method keyword or using Method::Signatures::Modifiers.
Performance penalty I am seeing is around 2-5x compared to Method::Signatures::Modifiers (5x being mostly for one specific class I was using). And it seems that it is mostly compile time or maybe first time initialization, because it is getting under 2x when the computation is longer.
Method::Signatures::Modifiers has better errors but you have to turn this optimization off when you use debugger (it goes haywire because it does not see these methods, you can see for yourself in -MO=Deparse output).
It may be worth it to get rid of Perl argument shifting hell.
I am battling to understand why a post compiler, like PostSharp, should ever be needed?
My understanding is that it just inserts code where attributed in the original code, so why doesn't the developer just do that code writing themselves?
I expect that someone will say it's easier to write since you can use attributes on methods and then not clutter them up boilerplate code, but that can be done using DI or reflection and a touch of forethought without a post compiler. I know that since I have said reflection, the performance elephant will now enter - but I do not care about the relative performance here, when the absolute performance for most scenarios is trivial (sub millisecond to millisecond).
Let's try to take an architectural point on the issue. Say you are an architect (everyone wants to be an architect ;)
You need to deliver the architecture to your team:
a selected set of libraries, architectural patterns, and design patterns. As a part of your design, you say: "we will implement caching using the following design pattern:"
string key = string.Format("[{0}].MyMethod({1},{2})", this, param1, param2 );
T value;
if ( !cache.TryGetValue( key, out value ) )
{
using ( cache.Lock(key) )
{
if (!cache.TryGetValue( key, out value ) )
{
// Do the real job here and store the value into variable 'value'.
cache.Add( key, value );
}
}
}
This is a correct way to do tracing. Developers are going to implement this pattern thousands of times, so you write a nice Word document telling how you want the pattern to be implemented. Yeah, a Word document. Do you have a better solution? I'm afraid you don't. Classic code generators won't help. Functional programming (delegates)? It works fairly well for some aspects, but not here: you need to pass method parameters to the pattern. So what's left? Describe the pattern in natural language and trust developers will implement them.
What will happen?
First, some junior developer will look at the code and tell "Hm. Two cache lookups. Kinda useless. One is enough." (that's not a joke -- ask the DNN team about this issue). And your patterns cease to be thread-safe.
As an architect, how do you ensure that the pattern is properly applied? Unit testing? Fair enough, but you will hardly detect threading issues this way. Code review? That's maybe the solution.
Now, what is you decide to change the pattern? For instance, you detect a bug in the cache component and decide to use your own? Are you going to edit thousands of methods? It's not just refactoring: what if the new component has different semantics?
What if you decide that a method is not going to be cached any more? How difficult will it be to remove caching code?
The AOP solution (whatever the framework is) has the following advantages over plain code:
It reduces the number of lines of code.
It reduces the coupling between components, therefore you don't have to change much things when you decide to change the logging component (just update the aspect), therefore it improves the capacity of your source code to cope with new requirements over time.
Because there is less code, the probability of bugs is lower for a given set of features, therefore AOP improves the quality of your code.
So if you put it all together:
Aspects reduce both development costs and maintenance costs of software.
I have a 90 min talk on this topic and you can watch it at http://vimeo.com/2116491.
Again, the architectural advantages of AOP are independent of the framework you choose. The differences between frameworks (also discussed in this video) influence principally the extent to which you can apply AOP to your code, which was not the point of this question.
Suppose you already have a class which is well-designed, well-tested etc. You want to easily add some timing on some of the methods. Yes, you could use dependency injection, create a decorator class which proxies to the original but with timing for each method - but even that class is going to be a mess of repetition...
... or you can add reflection to the mix and use a dynamic proxy of some description, which lets you write the timing code once, but requires you to get that reflection code just right -which isn't as easy as it might be, especially if generics are involved.
... or you can add an attribute to each method that you want timed, write the timing code once, and apply it as a post-compile step.
I know which seems more elegant to me - and more obvious when reading the code. It can be applied even in situations where DI isn't appropriate (and it really isn't appropriate for every single class in a system) and with no other changes elsewhere.
AOP (PostSharp) is for attaching code to all sorts of points in your application, from one location, so you don't have to place it there.
You cannot achieve what PostSharp can do with Reflection.
I personally don't see a big use for it, in a production system, as most things can be done in other, better, ways (logging, etc).
You may like to review the other threads on this matter:
Anyone with Postsharp experience in production?
Other than logging, and transaction management what are some practical applications of AOP?
Aspect Oriented Programming: What do you use PostSharp for?
etc (search)
Aspects take away all the copy & paste - code and make adding new features faster.
I hate nothing more than, for example, having to write the same piece of code over and over again. Gael has a very nice example regarding INotifyPropertyChanged on his website (www.postsharp.net).
This is exactly what AOP is for. Forget about the technical details, just implement what you are being asked for.
In the long run, I think we all should say goodbye to the way we are writing software now. It's tedious and plainly stupid to write boilerplate code and iterate manually.
The future belongs to declarative, functional style being held together by an object oriented framework - and the cross cutting concerns being handled by aspects.
I guess the only people who will not get it soon are the guys who are still payed for lines of code.