wip, may be, never publish
This commit is contained in:
parent
96646455bd
commit
9dcedab3aa
|
@ -39,10 +39,108 @@ What provide a good algebraic abstraction is the certainty that your system
|
||||||
will be *composable* upon some properties.
|
will be *composable* upon some properties.
|
||||||
So the important word here is *composability* which is arguably superior to /modularity/.
|
So the important word here is *composability* which is arguably superior to /modularity/.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Modularity is about combining different systems.
|
Here are a few example about how far we could / should go.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[fn:simple-vs-easy] If you want a great overview of the subject, I highly
|
[fn:simple-vs-easy] If you want a great overview of the subject, I highly
|
||||||
suggest you to watch [[https://thestrangeloop.com/2011/simple-made-easy.html][Simple made Easy]] video from Rich Hickey.
|
suggest you to watch [[https://thestrangeloop.com/2011/simple-made-easy.html][Simple made Easy]] video from Rich Hickey.
|
||||||
[fn:einstein] This is only attributed to Albert Einstein. He apparently
|
[fn:einstein] This is only attributed to Albert Einstein. He apparently
|
||||||
said something similar but we don't have any strong evidence he wrote or
|
said something similar but we don't have any strong evidence he wrote or
|
||||||
said exactly that.
|
said exactly that.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
* CRUD+Search
|
||||||
|
:PROPERTIES:
|
||||||
|
:CUSTOM_ID: crud-search
|
||||||
|
:END:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
With this simple abstraction you could build successful API.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+begin_src clojure
|
||||||
|
(defprotocol CRUDPS
|
||||||
|
(create [this id value])
|
||||||
|
(read [this id])
|
||||||
|
(update [this id new-value])
|
||||||
|
(delete [this id])
|
||||||
|
(patch [this id new-partial-value])
|
||||||
|
(search [this partial-value pagination-parameters]))
|
||||||
|
#+end_src
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
One important detail is that we could provide "partial values".
|
||||||
|
So we should have a language that should support the notion of "sub-object".
|
||||||
|
And if you are doing this in javascript, this should be easy.
|
||||||
|
In Java or Haskell, it might be a bit more funky.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
So just that. It is even simpler than an ORM.
|
||||||
|
You don't need more than that most of the time.
|
||||||
|
If you force yourself to work within this restriction this give you
|
||||||
|
immediately a few pretty good properties.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. *Portability*; This protocol is so simple to write it is easy to implement
|
||||||
|
it for different DBs. Postgres, ES, MongoDB, etc...
|
||||||
|
2. *Scalability*; as this only focus on a single table/index, you do not have
|
||||||
|
to think about join.
|
||||||
|
One of the most important property of my system is generally to never
|
||||||
|
write join.
|
||||||
|
And you can go surprisingly far without the need of any join.
|
||||||
|
In fact, most of the time "fake join" are more efficient, et good enough
|
||||||
|
for almost all user facing use case.
|
||||||
|
3. *Simplicity*; by only using this API internally, it is easy to manipulate
|
||||||
|
DB accesses.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Use HTTP, with 90% CRUD + Search.
|
||||||
|
This is enough for most use cases.
|
||||||
|
And by search, don't think about something too fancy.
|
||||||
|
A sub-JSON will be enough for most use case.
|
||||||
|
Then later you will probably want to add text search/matching.
|
||||||
|
Why sub-JSON is probably superior to your SQL query?
|
||||||
|
Because it is composable, more precisely this is a morphism, which SQL
|
||||||
|
queries aren't.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What do I precisely mean by "sub-JSON"?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Simply the ~<@~ operator in Postgres.
|
||||||
|
Or the basic MongoDB/ES search.
|
||||||
|
Not some system introducing complex structure.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
So you want to match:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+begin_src js
|
||||||
|
{"foo":"bar"}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
// should match with
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
{"foo": bar,
|
||||||
|
"x": "y"}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
// but shouldn't match
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
{"foo":"notbar",
|
||||||
|
"x":"y"}
|
||||||
|
//nor
|
||||||
|
{"x":"y"}
|
||||||
|
#+end_src
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
So this is a morphism with the following property:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#+begin_src
|
||||||
|
(find x) AND (find y) <=> (find (x inter y))
|
||||||
|
#+end_src
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Which is not possible to easily do with a SQL query.
|
||||||
|
If you have a string representing a query Q1, and another string
|
||||||
|
representing a query Q2.
|
||||||
|
It is difficult to produce a query for Q1 AND Q2.
|
||||||
|
Because, there are field selection for example.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For most modern web application/API you don't need to enforce strong
|
||||||
|
constant on that either.
|
||||||
|
For example, you can loose so much time trying to support a great update or patch.
|
||||||
|
Doing so in a concurrent system is hard.
|
||||||
|
If you don't care much, most of the time this will be perfectly ok.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
So just with that and the correct data structure.
|
||||||
|
No search by text, no join.
|
||||||
|
Just 1 table, per data structure saving JSON + the ability to search by sub-json.
|
||||||
|
We created, multiple time, a big reliable and nice to use API.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
No surprise, no discussion about query optimization, no problem about scalability.
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue