World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
BrianH 22-Jan-2009 [10078] | The chat database will be tiny enough for months. We aren't even done with the feature set. The internals can change easily. There are less than 700 messages, and we don't start having problems til 100000. I think we have time for this. |
Steeve 22-Jan-2009 [10079] | I only reacted with your false statement, that it's easy to modify the chat to kill the memory overhead. You didn't studied it carrefully enough. I know there is no chance that Carl and other gurrus follow my advices. But I know i'm right, i hope you will not regret it later... |
BrianH 22-Jan-2009 [10080] | I didn't dispute your statement, just its urgency. Priorities. |
Steeve 22-Jan-2009 [10081] | 700 messages in 3 weeks, with 5 regular users, you're according my point. |
BrianH 22-Jan-2009 [10082] | Many eyes make bugs shallow. We need more developers, which means we need a public release. Priorities. We can fix chat *after* the public release. As it is, getting the file store in place is a more pressing need. That way we can release and track the source. Once the source is released we can make fixes as needed. The priority needs to be on testing R3 itself, not the chat client. We aren't even going to start the GUI chat client until after the R3 public release. |
PeterWood 22-Jan-2009 [10083] | It's good to see a little realism about the scope of R3 when Carl posted this in RebDev: Regarding RIF, it will be in 3.1 (not 3.0) and it will provide a lot of the virtualness" needed for what I think your goal is (to have very large blocks for large datasets)." |
Dockimbel 22-Jan-2009 [10084] | From what I understood, RIF would have several advantages compared to a mezz-level approach : - fast indexed storage engine in C (probably btree indexes as sqlite storage layer was considered for RIF) - no LOAD/MOLD overhead (direct reading/writing of values in memory) |
BrianH 22-Jan-2009 [10085] | I wonder if it would preserve bindings? I can't see how... |
Dockimbel 22-Jan-2009 [10086] | I guess that the drawback is that RIF would probably be hidden in the Core part, so not open sourced. |
BrianH 22-Jan-2009 [10087] | Or it could be a UDT. |
Dockimbel 22-Jan-2009 [10088] | Probably if R3.1 takes another 3-4 years to be done ;-) |
Graham 22-Jan-2009 [10089] | Just be thankful R3 is not a 100 year language like Paul Graham's ARC. |
Gabriele 23-Jan-2009 [10090] | Steeve, as long as you're using a decent OS, any database should be kept all in memory regardless of size. Otherwise, you need a DBMS and a DBA. |
Maarten 23-Jan-2009 [10091] | Yes, some DBAs can do amazing things wih disks (disk tuning is a good selection criterion for a DBA) |
Steeve 23-Jan-2009 [10092] | Gabriele, it's your opnion not mine. we shouln't have to use DBMS or other external products (having to install them) for rebol applications which are standalone and not multi-user. The file scheme of Rebol can do the job with a simple scheme wrapper (to hide complexity). This has been requested by the community since long time ago. If you don't see the interest, good for you but let the other hope. |
DideC 23-Jan-2009 [10093x2] | I have big long cutting knifes in my kitchen ! Who wants one ? It can help you finding who is right or wrong in a more funny (gore) manner ;-) |
By the way, as Brian say, RebDev can stay as it is for a moment. It's simple Rebol data, so it could be easily transform to whatever new storage mechanism is needed when the time will require. And, I don't think the client need to load the whole msgs db as most of the time (99.9%) user just read the lasts msgs. So It can be changed to cache last 10000 msgs and will only deal with the full db if user ask it to do (ie : search). And to finnish, 24MB is not much for 100'000 msgs. I would not bother until it reach 200MB (It's what FF3 take after half a day of surfing) so I have 800'000 msgs left :-) | |
Henrik 23-Jan-2009 [10095x2] | About protocols: Carl says that the basic foundation is not going to change, so he wants to see some protocols written. He wants to start with something simple like Finger. Here's your chance to contribute! |
Carl: "most of the scheme structure has been solid and unchanged for more than a year. The main disruption was Unicode, but that's been done for a while too. I think we should pick a few very simple protocols, maybe one like Finger, and j ust show how they are done... as an example." | |
Steeve 23-Jan-2009 [10097] | No Didec to work as you wish, rebdev client as to be rewritten completly, it's not a minor change. |
Pekr 23-Jan-2009 [10098] | What was the proposition for change for RebDev? If it would be upon me, I would accept SQLIte as small, robust RDBMS for R3, via plugin (to stay external). Wait, we don't have plugins :-) |
[unknown: 5] 23-Jan-2009 [10099] | Steeve, check your private messages. |
BrianH 24-Jan-2009 [10100x2] | Steeve, there isn't much code in the RebDev client, by design it wouldn't be much work to completely rewrite it. Everything at that scale is a minor change - that is the nature of the scale. |
In any case, we can do this later. | |
Gabriele 24-Jan-2009 [10102] | Steeve: there are opinions, and there are facts. It is a fact that you can't be faster / more efficient than the OS. It is your opinion that you want to be less efficient. |
Steeve 24-Jan-2009 [10103] | Gabriele, you're out of my point, i don't say it can be faster than the OS. |
Pekr 24-Jan-2009 [10104] | Today I read acrticle about DB market. There are going to be some specialised DBs in future, and the needs diversify and scenario usages too. E.g. IBM has SolidDB in-memory DB, which uses async syncrhonisation to DB2 or Informix or something like that ... |
Steeve 24-Jan-2009 [10105] | Yes it's cool, it's something i try to do with Virtual blocks (blocks which are synchronised with files). it"s a tiny scheme (script size less than 5 kb). It doesn't allow sorted blocks currently but it could be. |
Janko 24-Jan-2009 [10106] | I am also sure DB's will specialise and already do (couchDB, bigtable..), and I plan to make few simple specialised storages to for some my projects. |
Gabriele 25-Jan-2009 [10107] | Steeve, exactly as I said, it is your opinion that you don't want to be efficient. It is my opinion that I want most of the time. |
Steeve 25-Jan-2009 [10108] | We have not the same defintion of efficience. The efficience of an application is a grid which contains several criteria. When you choose an implementation. All these criteria can't have the best value together Hiding this complexity by saying i'm efficient, and you are not, without saying you choose to lower some criteria, only reveals one thing, you're pretentious. |
Nicolas 25-Jan-2009 [10109] | Can anyone give a range of time where rebol 3 will be released? If not, can I just be notified by email when it is?? I'm sick of logging onto rebol.com and checking the blogs. I've been doing this for at least a year and I'm sick of it. |
Reichart 25-Jan-2009 [10110x2] | sick of it seems a bit extreme.... there are other good reasons to check in here. But that aside, how about simply setting up an RSS feded off Carl's blog, and set it to pull once a month or so? |
Feed. | |
Tomc 26-Jan-2009 [10112] | Nicolas, what? don't you come here for abuse when you try to contribute? |
Pekr 26-Jan-2009 [10113x3] | Nicolas - your message is a little bit hars, so here's answer you deserve - don't come back until 2010 :-) |
I personally take visiting blogs as a good sport, and am always glad that there is another blog posted, another piece of info available. You now have "what's next" kind of summary on rebol.com available, so how can you be sick of something, which CLEARLY states facts? | |
... I can understand, that you might be upset because you can't probably touch R3 yet. But that will change rather soon enough too. But even then - it is still going to be unfinished alpha, so if you plan R3 level of functionality with all protocols, etc., you will not get it. OTOH you might get some new things .... R3 is product under development, and that is what we should remember. | |
Henrik 26-Jan-2009 [10116] | Nicolas, the best you can do is just wait a few months and see what happens. |
Rebolek 26-Jan-2009 [10117] | If I understand the last blog correctly, we can expect public version of R3 soon: "If you do not have R3, watch the website over the next day or so." |
Henrik 26-Jan-2009 [10118] | yes... that's what we normally translate into "the next 2 months or so" :-) |
Maarten 26-Jan-2009 [10119] | I know of a killer app for REBOLers. A few lines really: one BIG RED BUTTON that launches on startup of your PC and turns GREEN the day R3 is released. |
Henrik 26-Jan-2009 [10120] | I think I know what is wrong: Carl is thinking near the speed of light, thus time slows down for him, so while it takes two months to get the next R3 release to the public, it only takes a day for him. :-) |
Maarten 26-Jan-2009 [10121] | LOL |
Gabriele 26-Jan-2009 [10122] | Steeve: again, that is your opinion here. The OS will always be more efficient at handling syncronization between memory and file, be it a swap file, or using mmap() and so on. So if your reason is "saving memory", then you are wrong here, because any real OS will do better than you. Then of course there's Windows, but that's a different story... |
Nicolas 26-Jan-2009 [10123x2] | Okay, I get abuse, a good answer - "check again in 2 months", and banter. Pekr, "soon enough"? - what does that mean? and when I get it, it'll be an alpha? Now, I don't want to agravate anyone. But I'm tired of having absolutely no idea when rebol 3 will be out, and out of beta. An acceptable answer to me would be something like 6 months give or take a year. If that kind of assurance can't be given then I'd like a bit of honesty. It's nice to be able to plan things. |
I guess I'm just angry at myself for having waited this long, this eagerly. | |
Pekr 26-Jan-2009 [10125] | Nicolas - every sane person should be able to read between the lines, no? So I tell you that all you can get for now is alpha, and you ask, if it is going to be an alpha? Waht if NOONE really knows, when we will be in beta stage? There were various propositions, and mine proposition was to create 3.0 with fixed featureset, and then go with 3.1 and later, adding other stuff. I can e.g. imagine 3.0 beta/full release just with GUI and R2 level featureset, plus Unicode, which is in there. Later can come things like plug-ins, threading, etc. |
Henrik 26-Jan-2009 [10126] | It's hard to plan at the alpha stage, especially since R3 is not at feature freeze at this moment. I use REBOL full-time here, and I won't be using R3 in my own projects for another year or so. It would be crazy to start doing that now for me. For new users, it's a matter of waiting. There is simply nothing else to do. |
Pekr 26-Jan-2009 [10127] | R3 development effort takes much longer, then we all initially wished for. But - in the end, it will pay of. What we should now concentrate upon and be grateful of is, that we can be involved in the development process, offer our ideas, influence final desing. Carl is exchanging ideas with the group on daily basis. |
older newer | first last |