James, when 4D is keeping the Postgres DB updated what mechanism is used? On
the same machine, LAN or using a SOAP call that goes over the internet?
Thanks,
R
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 22, 2017, at 10:23 AM, James Crate via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com>
> wrote:
>
> 4D pushes data to Pos
It’s not very sophisticated. 4D pushes data to PostgreSQL, or retrieves data
from PostgreSQL, based on either user-triggered actions or periodic task
execution. At no point does the Rails/PostgreSQL system access 4D. The fact
that 4D uses SQL to access the PostgreSQL database has specific disad
Jim, that sound sophisticated. :). So, when Rails is handling a web request in
what ways can Rails get to 4D data? Does all data need to be in PostgresSQL
database Rails knows about?
Thanks,
Robert
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:33 AM, James Crate via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.co
>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:11 PM, James Crate wrote:
>>
>> Ruby/Rails apps - processing large numbers of files; performing slow fuzzy
>> search on slices of data;
> On Feb 20, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Robert ListMail via 4D_Tech
> <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote:
>
> Jim, are you using Ruby/Rails with 4D
Jim, are you using Ruby/Rails with 4D in any way…?
Thanks,
Robert
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:11 PM, James Crate wrote:
>
> Ruby/Rails apps - processing large numbers of files; performing slow fuzzy
> search on slices of data;
*
Hello,
I'm not sure if that is a fair comparison.
if a variable is declared as integer in one method and real in another,
the compiler will throw an error because the type must be fixed in order to
generate compiled code.
it doesn't matter if the offending code is behind conditions,
that contrad
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Tony Ringsmuth wrote:
> My real objection is not the IP variable thing: as stated in other
> emails, it’s excluding entire methods, based on any content, and any
> sub-content just makes this a terrible implementation in my view.
>
Tony,
You are right in the se
Hey Chip
Thanks for the reply.
My real objection is not the IP variable thing: as stated in other emails,
it’s excluding entire methods, based on any content, and any sub-content just
makes this a terrible implementation in my view.
Think of it like this:
There are some commands that we canno
Hey Keith
>Sorry Tony, I also dislike the idea of IP variables being copied into new
> preemptive processes.
It seems pretty un-popular with the community. I’m at peace with that.
My big beef (as stated before) is that excluding entire methods, based on any
content, and any sub-content jus
I think that’s about right, except I think you’d have to instantiate it at the
same time it was declared. Maybe something like this:
ARRAY TEXT($atTemp;2)
$atTemp{1}:=“value 1”
$atTemp{2}:=“value 2”
ARRAY TEXT(><“ here instead of “<>” to let 4D know it is a static variable, for
lack of a bette
create a local array/object
declare the static array
Copy Array (local;static)
haven't worked with objects - but same Idea I assume
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:23:56 -0600, Cannon Smith wrote:
>
> I’ve been thinking about how a static variable could be instantiated.
> Think of an array, for example.
my 2 cents
If i am to understand correctly, Tony, you and I use IP variables in a
similar manner - we use them (primarily) as 'Konstants'.
I think a possible solution to at least this part of the IP issue is:
- some mechanism that allows us to either easily (as part of 4D not a
plugin/compo
On 4 Nov 2016, at 13:54, Keith White wrote:
> The main issue we'll face with attempting to get our code to be thread safe
> will be IP Arrays. Our IP arrays are static (in that they are populated on
> server startup) and without them performance would be very badly degraded
I am in exactly th
Hi
Given the current restrictions, we're currently not in a position to
contemplate Preemptive. Of course we'll be working on our code to move towards
it.
But what I just don't get is why 4D thinks that putting compiler _errors_ in
for this feature instead of just warnings, is a great idea.
Fuzzy matching...now I really won't be able to sleep tonight. I was pretty
obsessive for some time. There are a bunch of good papers about using
n-gram tables (2, 3, or 4-grams) in SQL databases to perform highly
optimized comparisons. It takes that little bit of extra setup, but then
you can get s
I'm not sure how well it works with PostgreSQL, but for Levenshtein, you
can screen out strings that are longer/shorter than your starting string by
greater than your target threshold. So, if you have a 7 character string
and want an edit distance of 2, your candidate pool can be limited to
strings
On Nov 3, 2016, at 10:26 PM, David Adams wrote:
>
>> It is slow. However, being able to utilize all 16 logical cores on the
> dual-processor xserve takes it from being “too slow”
>> to “ok with a warning that this is slow”. Even still, it takes 30 seconds
> or so to find possible duplicates in a
> It is slow. However, being able to utilize all 16 logical cores on the
dual-processor xserve takes it from being “too slow”
> to “ok with a warning that this is slow”. Even still, it takes 30 seconds
or so to find possible duplicates in a set of 1000 names.
What algorithm(s) are you using and ag
On Nov 3, 2016, at 9:30 PM, David Adams wrote:
>
>> processing large numbers of files; performing slow fuzzy search on slices
> of data;
>
> You had me at fuzzy ;-) There are so many fantastic fuzzy algorithms that
> are too slow to run in real-time or on normal gear. Any speed improvement
> wou
> processing large numbers of files; performing slow fuzzy search on slices
of data;
You had me at fuzzy ;-) There are so many fantastic fuzzy algorithms that
are too slow to run in real-time or on normal gear. Any speed improvement
would be welcome. I've pitched 4D about integrating various fuzzy
On Nov 1, 2016, at 5:49 PM, David Adams wrote:
>
> I'm not going to answer either of Tony's questions as I don't feel
> qualified to say one way or another. I'll admit that I've paid almost no
> attention to the preemptive/cooperative subject in upcoming versions of 4D.
> Can those of you who hav
> Does that appear “complex” to you?
Not at all. It also doesn't look like it uses any of the commands that are
forbidden in preemptive mode.
> In this case it would be difficult to summarize the data in all the
possible query options users have..
> It could be done but you’d have to store so many
David,
Tony wrote:
> Currently, 4D is trying to get around range-checking type overhead within
Preemptive
> processes by doing their checking at compile time.
David Adams wrote:
Where did you hear this? I didn't see any mention of this in the docs you
mentioned and don't s
On Nov 1, 2016, at 7:23 PM, David Adams wrote:
> Who knew? Great trick. A good alternative (but more complicated) is to use
> a memory-based message queue and send all of the log data to a single
> process that has the file open. This is a perfect use of CALL WORKER.
Yes, I agree.
> I gave up o
So if you are going to write it twice (once for preemptive and once for not)
separate the methods and you are there….
Method1
$Find_i:=find in array(<>aPerson_ID;$PersonID)
$TheName:=<>aPerson_Name{$Find_i}
Method1Preemptive
Query([person];[Person]id=$PersonID)
Memory-based caches are great and it is frustrating to have to resort to
building them scratch. How much speed difference will it make? I have no
idea, and it depends on what you're caching, where you're caching & how
much it costs to load the cache. I was recently working with PHP (on its
own, not
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Tony Ringsmuth wrote:
>
> QUESTION #1
> In light of the current restrictions, how likely are you to leverage
> the use of Preemptive Processing in the near future?
> NOT LIKELY / SOMEWHAT LIKELY / VERY LIKELY
Not likely because a method and all depen
Neil
> If it works for preemptive then it should work in all cases. Two cases means
> double maintenance, and double testing
Currently, I have a lot of places that get cached values out of IP variables
that I load on startup. I want my cooperative process to be able to continue
to take advant
> Currently, 4D is trying to get around range-checking type overhead within
Preemptive
> processes by doing their checking at compile time.
Where did you hear this? I didn't see any mention of this in the docs you
mentioned and don't see how what the compiler scans for replaces runtime
range check
> If($IsPreemptive)
> $GetSomeValue:=vMyValue
> ELSE
> $GetSomeValue:=<>MyIpVar
> END IF
So if you have to visit the code to make it work both ways why not just simply
use
$GetSomeValue:=vMyValue
If it works for preemptive then it should work in all cases. Two cases means
double maintenance
OK: I can see that my idea of Interprocess variables getting a separate
instance in Preemptive processes is not popular with several of you.
Consider then, a middle ground:
Currently, 4D is trying to get around range-checking type overhead within
Preemptive processes by doing their checking at
Keep in mind that a static variable, once created, could not be changed by
_any_ process. If it could be changed by nonpreemptive processes, then it isn’t
much different than a normal IP variable in the sense that even reading it
would require an OS level lock of some type. But I still think the
On Nov 1, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Cannon Smith wrote:
> The other solution would be to have 4D introduce the idea of a static
> variable. So if I declared an interprocess variable the normal way, it would
> not be allowed in preemptive processes. But if it was declared as static,
> then it is only re
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Tim Nevels wrote:
On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:49 PM, David Adams wrote:
> There's a note about docrefs being shared in cooperative threads and not
> shared in preemptive threads. I'm not at all clear what that means. I
would
> expect you would pass paths anyway...isn't t
On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:49 PM, David Adams wrote:
> There's a note about docrefs being shared in cooperative threads and not
> shared in preemptive threads. I'm not at all clear what that means. I would
> expect you would pass paths anyway...isn't that what everyone does now
> anyway?
I think this m
I’m sorry, Tony, but I’m not a fan of the idea of IP variables behaving
differently in different contexts. I haven’t actually used preemptive processes
yet, but I’ve been studying them as I plan to use them in a few different
contexts in a new project I’m on once I get to that point.
I’ve been
I'm not going to answer either of Tony's questions as I don't feel
qualified to say one way or another. I'll admit that I've paid almost no
attention to the preemptive/cooperative subject in upcoming versions of 4D.
Can those of you who have tried it all out and gotten some experience
provide a bit
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Tony Ringsmuth wrote:
> > Are you saying that will not be allowed and thus the StandardTriggerCode
> method cannot run preemptively?
> Yes, If you have ANY trigger in the whole database that references ANY
> restricted item (IP vars, Plugins, Various 4D commands o
Tim,
Here’s the section where you can read up on SAVE RECORD and pointers:
http://livedoc.4d.com/4D-Language-Reference-16/Processes/Preemptive-4D-processes.300-3036340.en.html
Read the section under triggers.
> Are you saying that will not be allowed and thus the StandardTriggerCode
> method ca
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Tony Ringsmuth wrote:
> As 4D is implementing it; your are correct.
> But the goal should be to Provide a path for
> - The best possible performance gain
> - With the least required amount of re-development
> I think they may be succeeding on #1, but totally faili
On Nov 1, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Tony Ringsmuth wrote:
> CURRENT RESTRICTIONS to using preemptive processes (up through the upcoming
> release of v16):
> 1: Any method that uses any restricted items cannot be called preemptively.
> Restricted items include:
> A: Interprocess variables
>
Jody,
Regarding #3: Pointers in SAVE RECORD…
This ½ of my biggest frustration: The other half is that if a method contains
any restricted item, then the whole method cannot be used. These are what kill
it for me.
This “All or nothing” of a method (and any sub-dependency) is the killer. It
e
Dennis,
You didn’t answer question #1.
>Dennis said: Before getting too cavalier on requesting a change in the
>implementation... make sure you understand why the restrictions are in place.
Tony’s response:
yes: I understand the reason for the restriction; and I agree, the speed loss
for preem
Hey Peter, thanks for your responses. My replies below:
You didn’t answer my questions #1 or #2.
>(Peter said) 1. Existing code will not be usable in preemptive processes
> anyway,
developers will have to significantly change or - best - write the code
from scratch.
(Tony’s reply)
Tony:
> QUESTION #1
VERY LIKELY (We will)
With the understanding of some frustration we would have, and understanding of
what may be their reasons, we would use them because of the advantages of them
being preemptive.
The item I do not like is item #3. How can I code without pointers ;-)
T
Before getting too cavalier on requesting a change in the implementation...
make sure you understand why the restrictions are in place. In most places the
implementation would be too slow to offset the benefit (e.g. putting semaphores
around inter-process variables), in some cases to protect int
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Tony Ringsmuth wrote:
> I appreciate your feedback in this
> Thanks!
> Tony Ringsmuth
>
Tony,
I will try to list some arguments why I think 4D implemented preemptive
processes the way they did:
1. Existing code will not be usable in preemptive processes anyway,
d
Hi Tony,
I love your preemptive enthusiasm! But I also want you to update to watchOS 3
so you have the Breath App at hand.
IMO 4D has always, always done a terrific job of migrating us, be it to
unicode, or out of subtables, or to that new OS.
Do you remember Windows NT? Microsoft totally ab
Hi Tony,
Question 1: Not Likely
Question 2: Likely
Regards,
Ken Geiger
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Tony Ringsmuth wrote:
> Greetings
>
> I’m on a quest to persuade 4D to adopt a more useful implementation of
> preemptive processing than they are currently adopting.
> Please answer questio
Greetings
I’m on a quest to persuade 4D to adopt a more useful implementation of
preemptive processing than they are currently adopting.
Please answer questions #1 and #2 below if you can.
CURRENT RESTRICTIONS to using preemptive processes (up through the upcoming
release of v16):
1: Any metho
50 matches
Mail list logo
