If you’ve ever heard Matt speak you know he’s very eloquent on where software development is headed, and this one was no exception.
Matt talked about how Meteor came to be and where it’s going. We talked about the forthcoming Galaxy hosting platform, React, being opinionated, and the Meteor Development Group’s decision making process about which components make up the Meteor stack.
Bup looks awesome. All the benefits of rsync plus the ability to do incremental backups.
"Even when a backup is incremental, you don't have to worry about restoring the full backup, then each of the incrementals in turn; an incremental backup acts as if it's a full backup, it just takes less disk space"
Yes, it would be a lot more appropriate for things that don't change that frequently. I actually started writing a blogging app for coders, and then succumbed to a bout of extraction distraction by generalizing the part that read the pages/posts from a Git repo: https://github.com/pauldowman/balisong
Right, it's either a trivial merge when you commit the transaction, or it's a conflict (i.e. two transactions updated the same attribute of the same entity).
There's no automatically fixing a conflict so the second transaction fails. Since there's full isolation that's pretty standard optimistic locking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimistic_locking
In most cases the transaction would succeed if it was automatically retried.
I'm pretty sure I can fix that global lock, but I'm focusing on getting the basics solid before focusing on performance.
My idea was that if there are concurrent transactions, then you just need a merge when the second one commits.
This is "optimistic locking": since they're probably updating different subdirectories it would be a trivial merge. If they update the same attribute of the same entity (i.e. they both change the same line of the same attributes.json file) then there's a conflict and the second commit fails.
This still requires a lock but only a tiny one, just at the moment of actually updating refs/heads/<branchname> (whereas right now it's around the whole transaction which obviously sucks).
Are there any flaws in that?
The reason I haven't done it yet even though it sounds pretty trivial is that with Grit (the Ruby Git library) the merge will need to use the working directory and that's a problem for concurrency (and also because I want the working directory to be useable by a human). I was thinking that with a bit of extra work I could make it happen in memory somehow.
Matt talked about how Meteor came to be and where it’s going. We talked about the forthcoming Galaxy hosting platform, React, being opinionated, and the Meteor Development Group’s decision making process about which components make up the Meteor stack.