What should be improved. You can also print the page as pdf and annotate what should be better / different.
Yes packaged as gem and published to the server with a Gemfile. Thanks a lot Michael Am 02.12.2011 um 13:36 schrieb Dmytrii Nagirniak: > I may be missing something, but it can't see exactly how to link up your code > with the server. > Should the extension be packaged as a gem and published publicly? > > That Wiki entry is a little bit poorly written IMO. Sorry for saying that :-( > > > On 02/12/2011, at 8:42 PM, Michael Hunger wrote: > >> http://wiki.neo4j.org/content/Ruby-script_extension >> >> >> Am 02.12.2011 um 10:32 schrieb Dmytrii Nagirniak: >> >>> >>>> That's why we've enable the >>>> - ruby-extensions for the server. >>> >>> Haven't seen anything about it. Could you please give some more info on >>> that (links maybe)? >>> >>>> it is not about duplicating functionality but about moving persistence >>>> related code closer to the db. >>> >>> It is a long topic on itself: Where the business logic belongs to - the >>> server or the client. >>> >>> But the point is that far the most common use-case is to write the business >>> logic on the client, not on the server. >>> >>> The business logic on the server has already failed multiple times in the >>> history (think of stored procedures on the RDBMS). >>> >>> Server side logic works well when the DB is part of the app (e.g. embedded) >>> and server/client code is often indistinguishable. >>> >> >> OTOH >> it is about keeping the database primitives at the database level and >> exposing domain level data and operations. >> (which makes your protocol smaller, faster, less diluted, better >> understandable and focused). >> >> After all with NOSQL you have much more often that you move code to the data >> (think map-reduce -> no one complains there). >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Am 02.12.2011 um 09:43 schrieb Dmytrii Nagirniak: >>>> >>>>> Good point. Yes, that certainly is an alternative. >>>>> >>>>> But unfortunately in practice I hardly can imagine .NET, Nodejs, MRI Ruby >>>>> (non Java basically) guys to start duplicating the logic for the plugin. >>>>> Not even taking into account additional complexity, including unit >>>>> testing. >>>>> >>>>> Similar thing ships with SQL Server. But it was used only by .NET people >>>>> and extremely rarely. >>>>> On Dec 2, 2011 6:57 PM, "Michael Hunger" >>>>> <michael.hun...@neotechnology.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> No, the alternative there is to provide a server-side extension that >>>>>> encapsulates your business logic as an endpoint running inside of a tx. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 02.12.2011 um 08:30 schrieb Dmytrii Nagirniak: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 02/12/2011, at 4:48 PM, Jim Webber wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Neo4j works as a standalone (or clustered) server which is >>>>>> accessible through the REST API. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's the point. There is not standalone version with native bindings. >>>>>>> You either run embedded and lock the whole database to the particular >>>>>> app, or you go with REST that doesn't support transactions (batch != >>>>>> transaction)... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Neo4j is ACID transactional with each HTTP request to the server >>>>>> being internally scoped in a single transaction. >>>>>>> Unfortunately it is not always enough, even when using batch API. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is the use-case: >>>>>>> 1. Query for a nodes/rels. >>>>>>> 2. Run some custom logic on the client. >>>>>>> 3. Update nodes/rels appropriately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the most common way of using databases. And currently it is not >>>>>> possible to wrap it in a transaction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the only alternative in this case is to use native binding, which may >>>>>> not be available to all. And means we are back at point 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you see what I mean here? >>>>>>> It's a trade-off: ACID vs DB with multiple clients. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A way of doing transactions over REST would be nice. But it will be >>>>>> extremely hard to implement due to the stateless nature of HTTP. >>>>>>> I can see something like this in API: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> POST /transaction?timeout=2 >>>>>>> # Returns the ID of the transaction for the future >>>>>>> >>>>>>> # then use the normal API... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PUT /transactions/1234/commit >>>>>>> # or >>>>>>> PUT /transactions/1234/rollback >>>>>>> # or >>>>>>> DESTROY /transactions/1234 >>>>>>> # or automatically rollback after 2 secs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I am not sure this can work reliably and performant enough with >>>>>>> HTTP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Neo4j mailing list >>>>>>> User@lists.neo4j.org >>>>>>> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Neo4j mailing list >>>>>> User@lists.neo4j.org >>>>>> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Neo4j mailing list >>>>> User@lists.neo4j.org >>>>> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Neo4j mailing list >>>> User@lists.neo4j.org >>>> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Neo4j mailing list >>> User@lists.neo4j.org >>> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Neo4j mailing list >> User@lists.neo4j.org >> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > > _______________________________________________ > Neo4j mailing list > User@lists.neo4j.org > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
