Skip to main content

Asyncronous Database Records

Through persistance systems, notably Divmod's Axiom project, i have been experimenting with the idea of asyncronous request of items which may or may not exist for some time. The idea is an abstraction of a terrible first idea for "persistant deferreds," which my very suggestion of lead to horrible responses over in #twisted, but well deserved, I now believe.

The concept is similar but perhaps simplified for the limitations and complications involved. Operations may return an "asyncronous item," which in my implementation is done by an Item implementing the IAsyncronousOperation ("operation" may be replaced with "Item") interface. This is akin to returning a deferred. The item allows the caller to control the response to the availability of the item, but in a way that can survive server crashes and reboots, and is otherwise a persistant record, and not an emphemeral object.

Borrowing additionally from Twisted, the asyncronous results can support both positive and negative handlers, set for managing the result as success or error. The creation of these handlers constitutes an additional asyncronous result, which can be used to chain handlers, akin to the callback chains of Twisted. In the event that the requested item is ready, which is either immediately or in the future, the appropriate handler is called and the asyncronous result handlers are cleaned up.

I will release the code soon, when the rest of the unittests are complete and an example usecase can demonstrate the usefulness. I have gotten some negative reaction from this one, and I really hope it can be attributed to misconceptions of my intent and failure to consider the right usecases. Hopefully I can remedy this.

Comments

mrshoe said…
Shouldn't everything persist through server crashes, power outages, and restarts? Check out http://www.capros.org/.
Josiah Carlson said…
That sounds a bit like a trigger plus a stored procedure in a database with callback registration. But maybe I'm over-thinking it.

Popular posts from this blog

Why I Switched From Git to Microsoft OneDrive

I made the unexpected move with a string of recent projects to drop Git to sync between my different computers in favor of OneDrive, the file sync offering from Microsoft. Its like Dropbox, but "enterprise."

Feeling a little ashamed at what I previously would have scoffed at should I hear of it from another developer, I felt a little write up of the why and the experience could be a good idea. Now, I should emphasize that I'm not dropping Git for all my projects, just specific kinds of projects. I've been making this change in habit for projects that are just for me, not shared with anyone else. It has been especially helpful in projects I work on sporadically. More on why a little later.

So, what drove me away from Git, exactly?

On the smallest projects, like game jam hacks, I just wanted to code. I didn't want to think about revisions and commit messages. I didn't need branching or merges. I didn't even need to rollback to another version, ever. I just …

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…