Ayende @ Rahien

Ayende Rahien commented on RavenDB implementation frustrations

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:45:49 GMT

Patrick, The networking stack difference means that I have slight different lower level stuff in the SL codebase, requiring me to create an abstraction on top of that, but that abstraction is useful when we are at that level, I have to have a different way to process for async in SL and in standard code. The main problem with the ifdef approach isn't for that, the problem is that three different ways of invoking the same logic (sync, async, lazy).

Patrick Huizinga commented on RavenDB implementation frustrations

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:15:53 GMT

What prevents you from reusing the Silverlight code in the full .Net stack? Besides the few lines for like transactions that could be #if-ed? However, I feel your pain. I implemented a cross platform duplex channel (that actually stays open), does retries and reuses its underlying channels. It took me about a thousand lines (including comments and white lines) and I had to get my hands dirty with IRequestChannel and custom Messages. Oh and I the server side was another few hundred lines (partly shared with the client side). Btw, in the Silverlight code I see a ContinueWith call. Is that from an actual Task, or is that custom code that just resembles a Task?

Ayende Rahien commented on RavenDB implementation frustrations

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:19:27 GMT

Andrey, Try to write an API like that, especially an Async one. It isn't pleasant. And it doesn't really work when you have exceptional cases or need to do retries

Andrey Shchekin commented on RavenDB implementation frustrations

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:01:30 GMT

I might be completely wrong in my understanding of the underlying problem, but I would have solved this thing this way: public IValue Get(string serverUrl, string key, Func> getResponseString) where interface IValue is a monad-like thing: public interface IValue { IValue Apply(Func function); ... } Then you have two implementations of IValue, Just where Apply runs immediately and Furture, where Apply uses ContinueWith.

Uncle Lob commented on RavenDB implementation frustrations

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:10:25 GMT

Wow that is one ugly code. Have you read Clean Code book sir?

Andres commented on RavenDB implementation frustrations

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 13:51:03 GMT

The construction of the JsonDocument should be in a method, there are a lot of common code inside these brackets. The URL generation could be in another method too, and maybe some of the exception management

tobi commented on RavenDB implementation frustrations

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:33:57 GMT

One thing that occured to me very late is that very very similar algorithms sometimes have special cases in only a few places but you just cannot either pull out the similarities or generalize using parameters/delegates. Sometimes, it is just not possible. Therefore I try to keep the different versions in sync as much as possible and keep as much of the structure the same as I can. Basically I just give up. Once you realize that this case actually occurs (and it is not just you being stupid) you take it much more easily.

tarwn commented on RavenDB implementation frustrations

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:52:52 GMT

Any reason not to extract the central portion of the sync method (the outer try/catch) and use it as a method call for the sync and asyc operation? Other than the extra try/catch I'm not seeing much difference between those two (I'm also on my first cup of coffee). If you refactored that into a method then you could easily use it from both the sync and async operation. The silverlight one looks fairly different due to the error catching, but it looks like you have already started extracting the web exception handling into a different function? It seems there might be some potential to use a common webexception handle function. Anyways, as I said earlier I'm on my first cup of coffee and it's possible that something like this has already occurred to you and isn't possible (sometimes things look possible w/ code samples that aren't when you take the whole codebase into account).

Simon Bartlett commented on RavenDB implementation frustrations

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:26:03 GMT

You should make your code samples scrollable - they disappear off the right side of the page behind the main navigation.