Skip to main content

How To Turn Web Development Around (Part 2)

I did my best to outline the problem in Part 1. Now I have to stand up and propose some kind of solution. Otherwise, I'm just complaining and contributing nothing of real value.

Our frameworks make certain things easier. They don't provide tools to help us with other things. For some other set of activities, they may actually prohibit. The problem here is a combination. Django makes it easy to query your database and wrap functionality up into re-usable template tags. While I'm thankful for that, I am also realizing that ease of one thing can prohibit another. When one path is made easier it creates the perception of greater difficulty in other paths. I think this is why, when our web frameworks give us all these tools to response to a web request, we completely lack in everything we could do aside from that request.

How can we make it easier to work outside the web request?

We need some idea of what working outside the web request means. We also need to define these in terms that are useful when we do get around to that request handling we've already got.

Going back to the tag cloud example, we look at the resources created when we generate one. Aside the HTML snippet of the tag cloud itself, we build the data used in the cloud, consisting of all the unique tags and their counts. This is the kind of data that makes sense to store in your cache, but this fails the normal cache use case. We don't want to loose these generated resources when caches reset, so we need something less ephemeral. Any decent key-value store would be a good solution here.

Unfortunately basic Django signals are lacking. Another means of triggering the resource generation at the right times, with the right parameters, has to be found. It makes sense to actually use existing signals, which would add to a job queue.

The few remaining parts to give us easy mechanisms for inserting snippets into templates or grabbing generated datasets in views are all very simple. Together, the three layers come together to give us what our frameworks are leaving out today. Resources, to store non-cheap data. Jobs, to generate resources. Finally, Tools to acquire and use those resources. If I were an egotistical man, I might try to coin my own acronym and name this RJT.

I know this is nothing new. Rather than make the situation better, that actually makes it worse. As any project grows and matures, the cut corners need to be filled in. Everything here is eventually built, to different variations and with probably a lot more forethought (or a lot less, depending on the pressure.) The only difference is that large scale applications need to divert more resources to pushing, instead of pulling, whereas smaller scale applications simply should, because the benefits exists in either case. We won't all need to grow at exponential rates, but we should be doing better with whatever resources and whatever work load our application is given, small or large.

Comments

fumanchu said…
This is why CherryPy 3.1 built out its Engine to be a generic pub/sub mechanism: you can add arbitrary channels and run job queues etc outside the request process quite easily.

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

Announcing Feet, a Python Runner

I've been working on a problem that's bugged me for about as long as I've used Python and I want to announce my stab at a solution, finally!

I've been working on the problem of "How do i get this little thing I made to my friend so they can try it out?" Python is great. Python is especially a great language to get started in, when you
don't know a lot about software development, and probably don't even know a lot about computers in general.

Yes, Python has a lot of options for tackling some of these distribution problems for games and apps. Py2EXE was an early option, PyInstaller is very popular now, and PyOxide is an interesting recent entry. These can be great options, but they didn't fit the kind of use case and experience that made sense to me. I'd never really been about to put my finger on it, until earlier this year:

Python needs LÖVE.

LÖVE, also known as "Love 2D", is a game engine that makes it super easy to build small Lua…

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…