for a project, I am trying to create a web-app that, among other things, allows training of machine learning agents using python libraries such as Dedupe or TensorFlow. In cases such as Dedupe, I need to provide an interface for active learning, which I currently realize through jquery based ajax calls to a view that takes and sends the necessary training data.
The problem is that I need this agent object to stay alive throughout multiple view calls and be accessible by each individual call. I have tried realizing this via the built-in cache system using Memcached, but the serialization does not seem to keep all the info intact, and while I am technically able to restore the object from the cache, this appears to break the training algorithm.
Essentially, I want to keep the object alive within the application itself (rather than an external memory store) and be able to access it from another view, but I am at a bit of a loss of how to realize this.
If someone knows the proper technique to achieve this, I would be very grateful.
Thanks in advance!
To follow up with this question, I have since realized that the behavior shown seemed to have been an effect of trying to use the result of a method call from the object loaded from cache directly in the return properties of a view. Specifically, my code looked as follows:
#model is the object loaded from cache
#this returns the wrong object (same object as on an earlier call)
return JsonResponse({"pairs": model.uncertain_pairs()})
and was changed to the following
#model is the object loaded from cache
#this returns the correct object (calls and returns the model.uncertain_pairs() method properly)
uncertain = model.uncertain_pairs()
return JsonResponse({"pairs": uncertain})
I am unsure if this specifically happens due to an implementation from Dedupe or Django side or due to Python, but this has undoubtedly fixed the issue.
To return back to the question, Django does seem to be able to properly (de-)serialize objects and their properties in cache, as long as the cache is set up properly (see Apparent bug storing large keys in django memcached which I also had to deal with)
Related
A repository pattern is there to abstract away the actual data source and I do see a lot of benefits in that, but a repository should not use IQueryable to prevent leaking DB information and it should always return domain objects, not DTO's or POCO's, and it is this last thing I have trouble with getting my head around.
If a repository pattern always has to return a domain object, doesn't that mean it fetches way too much data most of the times? Lets say it returns an employee domain object with forty properties and in the service and view layers consuming that object only five of those properties are actually used.
It means the database has fetched a lot of unnecessary data a pumped that across the network. Doing that with one object is hardly noticeable, but if millions of records are pushed across that way and a lot of of the data is thrown away every time, is that not considered bad behavior?
Yes, when adding or editing or deleting the object, you will use the entire object, but reading the entire object and pushing it to another layer which uses only a fraction of it is not utilizing the underline database and network in the most optimal way. What am I missing here?
There's nothing preventing you from having a separate read model (which could a separately stored projection of the domain or a query-time projection) and separating out the command and query concerns - CQRS.
If you then put something like GraphQL in front of your read side then the consumer can decide exactly what data they want from the full model down to individual field/property level.
Your commands still interact with the full domain model as before (except where it's a performance no-brainer to use set based operations).
In Glimmer.js, what is the best way to reset a tracked property to an initial value without using the constructor?
Note: Cannot use the constructor because it is only called once on initial page render and never called again on subsequent page clicks.
There are two parts to this answer, but the common theme between them is that they emphasize switching from an imperative style (explicitly setting values in a lifecycle hook) to a declarative style (using true one-way data flow and/or using decorators to clearly indicate where you’re doing some kind of transformation of local state based on arguments).
Are you sure you need to do that? A lot of times people think they do and they should actually just restructure their data flow. For example, much of the time in Ember Classic, people reached for a pattern of "forking" data using hooks like didInsertElement or didReceiveAttrs. In Glimmer components (whether in Ember Octane or in standalone Glimmer.js), it's idiomatic instead to simply manage your updates in the owner of the data: really doing data-down-actions-up.
Occasionally, it does actually make sense to create local copies of tracked data in a component—for example, when you want to have a clean separation between data coming from your API and the way you handle data in a form (because user interfaces are API boundaries!). In those scenarios, the #localCopy and #trackedReset decorators from tracked-toolbox are great solutions.
#localCopy does roughly what its name suggests. It creates a local copy of data passed in via arguments, which you can change locally via actions, but which also switches back to the argument if the argument value changes.
#trackedReset creates some local state which resets when an argument updates. Unlike #localCopy, the state is not a copy of the argument, it just needs to reset when the argument updates.
With either of these approaches, you end up with a much more “declarative” data flow than in the old Ember Classic approach: “forking” the data is done via decorators (approach 2), and much of the time you don’t end up forking it at all because you just push the changes back up to the owner of the original data (1).
I'm new to symfony2 and doctrine.
here is the problem as I see it.
i cannot use :
$repository = $this->getDoctrine()->getRepository('entity');
$my_object = $repository->findOneBy($index);
on an object that is persisted, BUT NOT FLUSHED YET !!
i think getRepository read from DB, so it will not find a not-flushed object.
my question: how to read those objects that are persisted (i think they are somewhere in a "doctrine session") to re-use them before i do flush my entire batch ?
every profile has 256 physical plumes.
every profile has 1 plumeOptions record assigned to it.
In plumeOptions, I have a cartridgeplume which is a FK for PhysicalPlume.
every plume is identified by ID (auto-generated) and an INDEX (user-generated).
rule: I say profile 1 has physical_plume_index number 3 (=index) connected to it.
now, I want to copy a profile with all its related data to another profile.
new profile is created. New 256 plumes are created and copied from older profile.
i want to link the new profile to the new plume index 3.
check here: http://pastebin.com/WFa8vkt1
I think you might want to have a look at this function:
$entityManager->getUnitOfWork()->getScheduledEntityInsertions()
Gives you back a list of entity objects which are persisting yet.
Hmm, I didn't really read your question well, with the above you will retrieve a full list (as an array) but you cannot query it like with getRepository. I will try found something for u..
I think you might look at the problem from the wrong angle. Doctrine is your persistance layer and database access layer. It is the responsibility of your domain model to provide access to objects once they are in memory. So the problem boils down to how do you get a reference to an object without the persistance layer?
Where do you create the object you need to get hold of later? Can the method/service that create the object return a reference to the controller so it can propagate it to the other place you need it? Can you dispatch an event that you listen to elsewhere in your application to get hold of the object?
In my opinion, Doctrine should be used at the startup of the application (as early as possible), to initialize the domain model, and at the shutdown of the application, to persist any changes to the domain model during the request. To use a repository to get hold of objects in the middle of a request is, in my opinion, probably a code smell and you should look at how the application flow can be refactored to remove that need.
Your is a business logic problem effectively.
Querying down the Database a findby Query on Object that are not flushed yet, means heaving much more the DB layer querying object that you have already in your function scope.
Also Keep in mind a findOneBy will retrieve also other object previously saved with same features.
If you need to find only among those new created objects, you should make f.e. them in a Session Array Variable, and iterate them with the foreach.
If you need a mix of already saved items + some new items, you should threate the 2 parts separately, one with a foreach , other one with the repository query!
I am new to Django, and probably using it in a way thats not normal.
That said, I would like to find a way to have site wide memory.
To Explain.
I have a very simple setup where one compter will make posts to the site every few seconds.
I want this data to be saved off somewhere.
I want everyone who is viewing the webpage to see updates based on this data in near real time via some javascript.
So using the sample code below.
Computer A would do a post to set_data and set data to "data set"
Computer B,C,D,etc.... would then do a get to get_data and see "data set"
Unfortunatly B,C,D just see ""
I have a feeling what i need is memcached, but I am on a hostgator shared server and cannot install that. In the meantime I am just writing them to files. This works but is really inneficient, and I am hopeing to serve a large user base.
Thanks for any help.
#view.py
data=""
def set_data(request):
data = request.POST['data']
return HttpResponse("");
def get_data(request):
return HttpResponse(data);
memcached is lossy, hence doesn't fulfil "persistent".
Files are fine, but switch to accessing them via mmap.
Persistent storage is also called database (although for some cases Django's cache backend might work as well). Don't ever try to use global variables in web development.
Whether you should use a Django model or the cache backend really depends on your use case, but you just described a contrived example (or does your web app consist of a getter and a setter?).
I've got a quick question regarding the use of repositories. But the best way to ask is to show a bit of pseudocode and you guys tell me what the result should be
Get a record from the repository with ID of 1 (assume it exists)
Edit a couple of properties
Query the repository again for an item with ID of 1
Result = ??
Should I get the object with updated values or the object without (original state), bearing in mind that since updating the values of properties (step 2) I have not told the repository to update this record.
I think I should get a copy of the original item and not a reference to the edited version.
Please tell me what is correct.
Cheers
The repository pattern is suppose to act like a collection of your objects, so ideally I think it should return the same object instance which would have the updates in it.
Generally there is an identity map somewhere so your repositories can keep track of what has already been loaded. With an identity map, when you fetch an object with the same Id you should always get the already loaded object back regardless of how many times. This is how all more sophisticated ORMs work and is generally a good practice. An identity map helps keep things in sync while you are in the same transaction and saves you some data access.
NHibernate's session has an identity map it keeps track of so you don't have to worry about trying to implement your own in your repositories. Also I believe you can use NHibernate's stateless session if you want to load another instance without change tracking, but I'm not positive on that.
Judging from your past questions I'm assuming you are using LINQ/C#?
If you are using a DataContext and you haven't called SubmitChanges() then you should get back the original unchanged object.
Just tested it. I was wrong, you get back the changed object.
If you set ObjectTrackingEnabled = false on the DataContext you will get the unchanged object.