Optimistic locking for updates in Elasticsearch

In a post in 2012, I expanded a bit on the virtues of using elasticsearch as a document store, as opposed to using a separate database. To my surprise, I still get hits on that article on a daily basis. This indicates that there is some interest in using elasticsearch as described there. So, I’m planning to start blogging a bit more again after more or less being too busy with building Inbot to do so since last February.

Continue reading “Optimistic locking for updates in Elasticsearch”

Puppet

I recently started preparing for deploying our localstre.am codebase to an actual server. So, that means I’m currently having a lot of fun picking up some new skills and playing system administrator (and being aware of my short comings there). World plus dog seems to be recommending using either Chef or Puppet for this  and since I know few good people that are into puppet in a big way and since I’ve seen it used in Nokia, I chose the latter.

After getting things to a usable state, I have a few observations that come from my background of having engineered systems for some time and having a general gut feeling about stuff being acceptable or not that I wanted to share.

  • The puppet syntax is weird. It’s a so-called ruby DSL that tries to look a bit like json and only partially succeeds. So you end up with a strange mix of : and => depending on the context. I might be nit picking here but I don’t think this a particularly well designed DSL. It feels more like a collection of evolved conventions for naming directories and files that happen to be backed by ruby. The conventions, naming, etc. are mostly non sensical. For example the puppet notion of a class is misleading. It’s not a class. It doesn’t have state and you don’t instantiate it. No objects are involved either. It’s more close to a ruby module. But in puppet, a module is actually a directory of puppet stuff (so more like a package). Ruby leaks through in lots of places anyway so why not stick with the conventions of that language? For example by using gems instead of coming up with your own convoluted notion of a package (aka module in puppet). It feels improvised and gobbled together. Almost like the people who built this had no clue what they were doing and changed their minds several times. Apologies for being harsh if that offended you BTW ;-).
  • The default setup of puppet (and chef) assumes a lot of middleware that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever for most smaller deployments (or big deployments IMNSHO). Seriously, I don’t want a message broker anywhere near my servers any time soon, especially not ActiveMQ. The so-called masterless (puppet) or solo (chef) setups are actually much more appropriate for most people.  They are more simple and have less moving parts. That’s a good thing when it comes to deployments.
  • It tries to be declarative. This is mostly a good thing but sometimes it is just nice to have an implicit order of things following from the order in which you specify things. Puppet forces you to be explicit about order and thus ends up being very verbose about this. Most of that verbosity is actually quite pointless. Sometimes A really comes before B if I specify it in that order in one file.
  • It’s actually quite verbose compared to the equivalent bash script when it comes to basic stuff like for example starting a service, copying a file from a to b, etc. Sometimes a “cp foo bar; chmod 644 bar” just kinda does the trick. It kind of stinks that you end up with these five line blobs for doing simple things like that. Why make that so tedious?
  • Like maven and ant in the Java world it, it tries to be platform agnostic but only partially succeeds. A lot of platform dependencies creep in any way and generally puppet templates are not very portable. Things like package names, file locations, service names, etc. end up being platform specific anyway.
  • Speaking of which, puppet is more like ant than like maven. Like ant, all puppet does is provide the means to do different things. It doesn’t actually provide a notion of a sensible default way that things are done that you then customize, which is what maven does instead. Not that I’m a big fan of maven but with puppet you basically have to baby sit the deployment and worry about all the silly little details that are (or should be) bog standard between deployments: creating users, setting up & managing ssh keys, ensuring processes run with the appropriate restrictions, etc. This is a lot of work and like a lot of IT stuff it feels repetitive and thus is a good candidate for automation. Wait … wasn’t puppet supposed to be that solution? The puppet module community provides some reusable stuff but its just bits and pieces really and not nearly enough for having a sensible production ready setup for even the simplest of applications. It doesn’t look like I could get much value out of that community.

So, I think puppet at this stage is a bit of a mixed bag and I still have to do a lot of work to actually produce a production ready system. Much more than I think is justified by the simplicity of real world setups that I’ve seen in the wild. Mostly running a ruby or java application is not exactly rocket science. So, why exactly does this stuff continue to be so hard & tedious despite a multi billion dollar industry trying to fix this for the last 20 years or so?

I don’t think puppet is the final solution in devops automation. It is simply too hard to do things with puppet and way too easy to get it wrong as well. There’s too much choice, a lack of sensible policy, and way too many pitfalls. It being an improvement at all merely indicates how shit things used to be.

Puppet feels more like a tool to finish the job that linux distributors apparently couldn’t be bothered to do in arbitrary ways than like a tool to produce reliable & reproducible production quality systems at this point and I could really use a tool that does the latter without the drama and attitude. What I need is sensible out of the box experience for the following use case: here’s a  war file, deploy that on those servers.

Anyway, I started puppetizing our system last week and have gotten it to the point where I can boot a bunch of vagrant virtual machines with the latest LTS ubuntu and have them run localstre.am in a clustered setup. Not bad for a week of tinkering but I’m pretty sure I could have gotten to that point without puppet as well (possibly sooner even). And, I still have a lot of work to do to setup a wide range of things that I would have hoped would be solved problems (logging, backups, firewalls, chroot, load balancing a bog standard, stateless http server, etc). Most of this falls in the category of non value adding stuff that somebody simply has to do. Given that we are a two person company and I’m the CTO/server guy, that would be me.

I of course have the benefit of hindsight from my career in Nokia where I watched Nokia waste/invest tens of millions on deploying simple bog standard Java applications (mostly) to servers for a few years. It seems simple things like “given a war file, deploy the damn thing to a bunch of machines” get very complicated when you grow the number of people involved. I really want to avoid needing a forty people ops team to do stupid shit like that.

So, I cut some corners. My time is limited and my bash skills are adequate enough that I basically only use puppet to get the OS in a usable enough state that I can hand off to to a bash script to do the actual work of downloading, untarring, chmodding, etc. needed to  get our application running. Not very puppet like but at least it gets the job done in 40 lines of code or so without intruding too much on my time. In those 40 lines, I install the latest sun jdk (tar ball), latest jruby (another tar ball), our code base, and the two scripts to start elastic search and our jetty/mizuno based app server.

What would be actually useful is reusable machine templates for bog standard things like php and ruby capable servers, java tomcat servers, apache load balancers, etc with sensible hardened configurations, logging, monitoring, etc. The key benefit would be inheriting from a sensible setup and only changing the bits that actually need changing. It seems that is too much to ask for at this point and consequently hundreds of thousands of system administrators (or the more hipster devops if you are so inclined) continue to be busy creating endless minor variations of the same systems.

Data processing in Java: iterables-support

I’ve been doing quite a bit of data processing lately. I work with geo tagged data such as POIs, tweets, images, Wikipedia articles etc. I’m interested in processing this data to explore the data and identify relations.

It used to be that Java was a really inconvenient language for this kind of thing and thus generally frowned upon. The reasons people often cite relate to the lack of expressiveness of the language and the generally high amount of boiler plate code you need to do even the most simple stuff.

This makes a compelling argument for using alternative languages such as python or ruby or for using Hadoop with some domain specific language like Pig on top. And indeed, I’ve used python for some data processing jobs and found that while it has its nice sides (e.g. expressive syntax) it also has some pretty strong arguments against it, which include generally less capable frameworks for e.g. http connectivity (dozens of frameworks to choose from, none of them coming close to Apache’s httpclient for Java). Other issues I ran into are poor performance, very limited concurrency options (compared to e.g. the java concurrent package), a quite weak standard library, awkward handling of utf-8, a json parser that is sloooooow, an xml library that is both awkward and limited.

Hadoop is nice if you have a cluster to run it on but it is also a very complex beast that is not widely known for being particularly useable from a coding point of view (at the Java level that is) or a deployment point of view. In practice you have to use things like pig on top or as my old colleague @sthuebner prefers, something like Clojure and Cascalog.

So, there’s a tradeoff between convenience, performance, expressiveness, and other factors. Or is there? Having worked with Java extensively since 1996, I’m actually quite comfortable with the language, the standard APIs, and the misc. open source frameworks I’ve used over the years. I’ve dabbled with lots of stuff over the years but I always seem to come back to Java when I just need to get stuff done.

Java as a language is of course a bit outdated and not quite as fashionable as it once was. But despite the emergence of more powerful languages, it can be made to do quite useful things still and it can compensate for it’s lack of language hipster-ness with robustness, performance and tons of libraries and add on features and the hands down best by far IDE support for any language. It’s still got a lot going for it.

Continue reading “Data processing in Java: iterables-support”

CouchDB

We did a little exercise at work to come up with a plan to scale to absolutely massive levels. Not an entirely academic problem where I work. One of the options I am (strongly) in favor of is using something like couchdb to scale out. I was aware of couchdb before this but over the past few days I have learned quite a bit more that and am now even more convinced that couchdb is a perfect match for our needs. For obvious reasons I can’t dive in what we want to do with it exactly. But of course itemizing what I like in couchdb should give you a strong indication that it involves shitloads (think hundreds of millions) of data items served up to shitloads of users (likewise). Not unheard of in this day and age (e.g. Facebook, Google). But also not something any off the shelf solution is going to handle just like that.

Or so I thought …

The couchdb wiki has a nice two line description:

Apache CouchDB is a distributed, fault-tolerant and schema-free document-oriented database accessible via a RESTful HTTP/JSON API. Among other features, it provides robust, incremental replication with bi-directional conflict detection and resolution, and is queryable and indexable using a table-oriented view engine with JavaScript acting as the default view definition language.

This is not the whole story but it gives a strong indication that quite a lot is being claimed here. So, lets dig into the details a bit.

Document oriented and schema less storage. CouchDB stores json documents. So, a document is nothing more than a JSON data structure. Fair enough. No schemas to worry about, just data. A tree with nodes, attributes and values. Up to you to determine what goes in the tree.

Conflict resolution. It has special attributes for the identity and revision of a document and some other couchdb stuff. Both id and revision are globally unique uuids. UPDATE revision is not a uuid (thanks Matt).That means that any document stored in any instance of couchdb anywhere on this planet is uniquely identifiable and that any revision of such a document in any instance of couchdb is also uniquely identifiable. Any conflicts are easily identified by simply examining the id and revision attributes. A (simple) conflict resolution mechanism is part of couchdb. Simple but effective for simple day to day replication.

Robust incremental replication. Two couchdb nodes can replicate to each other. Since documents are globally unique, it is easy to figure out which document is on which node. Additionally, the revision id allows couchdb to figure out what the correct revision is. Should you be so unlucky to have conflicting changes on both nodes, there are ways of dealing with conflict resolution as well. What this means is that any node can replicate to any other node. All it takes is bandwidth and time. It’s bidirectional so you can have a master-master setup where both nodes consume writes and propagate changes to each other. The couchdb use the concept of “eventual consistency” to emphasize the fact that a network of couchdb nodes replicating to each other will eventually have the same data and be consistent with each other, regardless of the size of the network or how out of sync the nodes are at the beginning.

Fault tolerant.Couchdb uses a file as its datastore. Any write to a couchdb instance appends stuff to this file. Data in the file already is never overwritten. That’s why it is fault tolerant. The only part of the file that can possibly get corrupted is at the end of the file, which is easily detected (on startup). Aside from that, couchdb is rock solid and guaranteed to never touch your data once it has been committed to disk. New revisions don’t overwrite old ones, they are simply appended to the file (in full) to the end of the file with a new revision id. You. Never. Overwrite. Existing. Data. Ever. Fair enough, it doesn’t get more robust than that. Allegedly, kill -9 is a supported shutdown mechanism.

Cleanup by replicating. Because it is append only, a lot of cruft can accumulate in the bit of the file that is never touched again. Solution: add an empty node, tell the others to replicate to it. Once they are done replicating, you have a clean node and you can start cleaning up the old ones. Easy to automate. Data store cleanup is not an issue. Update. As Jan and Matt point out in the comments, you can use a compact function, which would be a bit more efficient.

Restful. CouchDBs native protocol is REST operations over HTTP. This means several things. First of all, there are no dedicated binary protocols, couchdb clients, drivers, etc. Instead you use normal REST and service related tooling to access couchdb. This is good because this is exactly what has made the internet work for all these years. Need caching? Pick your favorite caching proxy. Need load balancing? Same thing. Need access from language x on platform y? If it came with http support you are ready to roll.

Incremental map reduce. Map reduce is easy to explain if you understand functional programming. If you’re not familiar with that, it’s a divide and conquer type strategy to calculate stuff concurrently from lists of items. Very long lists with millions/billions of items. How it works is as follows: the list is chopped into chunks. The chunks are processed concurrently in a (large) cluster to calculate something. This is called the map phase. Then the results are combined by collecting the results from processing each of the chunks. This is called the reduce phase. Basically, this is what Google uses to calculate e.g. pagerank and many thousands of other things on their local copy of the web (which they populate by crawling) the web regularly. CouchDB uses the same strategy as a generic querying mechanism. You define map and reduce functions in Javascript and couchdb takes care of applying them to the documents in its store. Moreover, it is incremental. So if you have n documents and those have been map reduced and you add another document, it basically incrementally calculates the map reduce stuff. I.e. it catches up real quick. Using this feature you can define views and query simply by accessing the views. The views are calculated on write (Update. actually it’s on read), so accessing a view is cheap whereas writing involves the cost of storing and the background task of updating all the relevant views, which you control yourself by writing good map reduce functions. It’s concurrent, so you can simply add nodes to scale. You can use views to index specific attributes, run clustering algorithms, implement join like query views, etc. Anything goes here. MS at one point had an experimental query optimizer backend for ms sql that was implemented using map reduce. Think expensive datamining SQL queries running as map reduce jobs on a generic map reduce cluster.

It’s fast. It is implemented in erlang which is a language that is designed from the ground up to scale on massively parallel systems. It’s a bit of a weird language but one with a long and very solid track record in high performance, high throughput type systems. Additionally, couchdb’s append only and lock free files are wickedly fast. Basically, the primary bottleneck is the available IO to disk. Couchdb developers are actually claiming sustained write throughput that is above 80% of the IO bandwidth to disk. Add nodes to scale out.

So couchdb is an extremely scalable & fast storage system for documents that provides incremental map reduce for querying and mining the data; http based access and replication; and a robust append only, overwrite never, and lock free storage.

Is that all?

No.

Meebo decided that this was all nice and dandy but they needed to partition and shard their data instead of having all their data in every couchdb node. So they came up with CouchDB Lounge. Basically what couchdb lounge does is enabled by the REST like nature of couchdb. It’s a simple set of scripts on top of nginx (a popular http proxy) and the python twisted framework (a popular IO oriented framework for python) that dynamically routes HTTP messages to the right couchdb node. Each node hosts not one but several (configurable) couchdb shards. As the shards fill up, new nodes can be added and the existing shards are redistributed among them. Each shard calculates its map reduce views, the scripts in front of the loadbalancer take care of reducing these views across all nodes to a coherent ‘global’ view. I.e. from the outside world, a couchdb lounge cluster looks just like any other couchdb node. It’s sharded nature is completely transparent. Except it is effectively infinitely scalable both in the number of documents it can store as well in the read/write throughput. Couchdb looks just like any other couchdb instance in the sense that you can run the full test suite that comes with couchdb against and it will basically pass all tests. There’s no difference from a functional perspective.

So, couchdb with couchdb lounge provides an off the shelf solution for storing, accessing and querying shitloads of documents. Precisely what we need. If shitloads of users come that need access, we can give them all the throughput they could possibly need by throwing more hardware in the mix. If shitloads is redefined to mean billions instead of millions, same solution. I’m sold. I want to get my hands dirty now. I’m totally sick and tired of having to deal with retarded ORM solutions that are neither easy, scalable, fast, robust, or even remotely convenient. I have some smart colleagues who are specialized in this stuff and way more who are not. The net result is a data layer that requires constant fire fighting to stay operational. The non experts routinely do stuff they shouldn’t be doing that then requires lots of magic from our DB & ORM gurus. And to be fair, I’m not an expert. CouchDB is so close to being a silver bullet here that you’d have to be a fool to ignore the voices telling you that it is all too good to be true. But then again, I’ve been looking for flaws and so far have not come up with something substantial.

Sure, I have lots of unanswered questions and I’m hardly a couchdb expert since technically, any newby with more than an hour experience coding stuff for the thing outranks me here. But if you put it all together you have an easy to understand storage solution that is used successfully by others in rather large deployments that seem to be doing quite well. If there are any limits in terms of the number of nodes, the number of documents, or indeed the read/write throughput, I’ve yet to identify it. All the available documentation seems to suggest that there are no such limits, by design.

Some good links:

Server side development sucks

Warning: long rant 🙂

The past half year+ I’ve been ‘enjoying’ myself with lots of technical things related to working with Java, the spring framework, maven, unit testing and lots of command line stuff. And while I like my job, I have to say: it can be enormously tedious from time to time.

If you are coding Java in Eclipse, life is good. Eclipse is enormously helpful and gives you more or less real time feedback on how you are doing with respect to warnings, compilation errors, etc. This is great because it saves you from manual edit compile debug fix cycles, which take time and are frustrating. Frustrating however is what I’d call the current state of server side Java, which takes place mostly outside Eclipse. I spend a shit load of time on a day to day basis waiting for my application server to catch up with what I did in Eclipse, only to find that some minor typo is blocking my progress. So shut down server, edit, compile, package, deploy, wait a minute or so, get the server in the same state you had before and see if it works. Repeat, endlessly. That’s more or less my day.

There’s lots of tools to make this easier. Maven is nice, but it is also a huge time waster with its insistence on checking for updates of everything you have every time you try to use it (20 dependencies is 20 GET requests to your maven repository) and on top of that running the test suite as well. Useful, except if you’ve done this 20 times in the last hour already and you are pretty damn sure you are not interested in whether it will pass this time since you just want to know if that one typo you fixed was actually good enough. Then there are ways of hooking up application servers to eclipse and making them be somewhat more reasonable about requiring full shutdown, deploy and restart. Still it is tedious. And it doesn’t help that maven is completely oblivious about this feature, leaving you to set up things manually. Or not, since that’s not exactly trivial.

The maven way is “our way or the highway”. Eclipse and application servers are part of the highway and while there is the maven eclipse plugin and the eclipse maven plugin (yes, you read that right), the point of both is that there is a (huge) gap to bridge. They each have their own idea of where source code and binaries go and where dependencies come from, or indeed where stuff gets deployed to be debugged. Likewise, maven’s idea of application server integration is wrapping the start up process with some plugin. It does nothing to speed up the actual process of getting the application server up and running. It just saves you from having to start it manually. Eclipse plugins exist to do the same. And of course getting the maven and eclipse plugins to play nice with each other is kind of a challenge. Essentially, there are three worlds: maven, eclipse, and the application server and you’ll lose shit loads of development time watching one catch up with the other.

I have in the back of my mind still last year’s project which was based on python Django. Last year, my job was like this: edit, alt+tab to browser, F5, test, alt+tab back to eclipse, fix, etc. I had 1-3 second roundtrips between my browser and editor, apache was loading the python files straight from my svn work directory. We had a staging server that updated with a cron job that did nothing but “svn up”. Since then I’ve had the pleasure of debating the merits of using dynamic languages in a server side environment in a place where everybody is partying on the Java bandwagon like it’s 1999. Well here it is: you spend a shitload less time waiting for maven or application servers to finish whatever they think needs to be done. On top of that, quite a lot of server side Java is actually scripting. Don’t fool yourself into believing otherwise. We use spring web flow, which means my application logic is part Java, part xhtml with jsf (and a half dozen xml name spaces for that), part xml definitions for webflow, part definitions for spring beans and part Javascript. Guess where you can find bugs: all of them. Guess which ones Eclipse actually provides real time feedback on: Java only. So basically all the disadvantages of using a scripting environment (run-time bug discovery) without most of the advantages (like fast edit-test round trips).

So it is not surprising to me that scripting languages are winning over a lot of people lately. You write less code, in less languages, and on top you get more time to spend editing it because you are not waiting for tools and servers to catch up with your editor. This matters a lot and the performance and scalability benefits of Java are melting away rapidly lately.

On top of that, when I look at what we do, which is really straightforward web & REST stuff with a mysql db, and what a shitload of code, magic producing tools and frameworks, complexity, etc. we end up with something feels terribly wrong. We use hibernate for our database layer. Great stuff, until it doesn’t do what you want and starts basically throwing pretty random RunTimeExceptions at you because you forgot to add a column in your database schema (thus reducing Java to a scripting language because all of this happens run-time).

We have sort of a three way impedence mismatch going here straight out of the cookbook of Enterprise Architecture. Our services speak DTOs (data transfer objects), the database layer needs model classes and the database itself speaks SQL. So a typical REST call will go like this: xml/json comes in, gets translated to dtos, which are manipulated and get translated into model objects, which are manipulated, which results in sql being sent to the database, records coming back and translated into model objects, dto’s and back to xml/json. Basically stuff can go wrong in any of these transitions and a lot of development is basically babysitting your application through all these transitions instead of writing actual application logic.

To make this work, we need mappings from dto’s to model classes and from there to the database. So to add 1 field: I have to edit a model class, update the dto class, edit the mapping from models to dtos, the mapping from models to databases, the database schema itself. Then I have to write tests that verify all the mappings still work correctly and adapt any depending tests. 1 field, about a dozen of files touched. Re-fucking-diculous in my view. This is made ‘easier’ with Dozer that maps object hierarchies to each other, hibernate that takes care of the database and which uses annotations that make magic happen around the places where you use them, resteasy that does all of the incoming and outgoing xml/json magic, maven to download the world (the number of dependencies we have 30+). All to get one really straightforward REST service + 8 table mysql database going.

In short, I kind of miss the days where server side java development meant servlets+jdbc: read parameters from request, do some select/update query, write some stuff to the response. It might lack elegance but you get the same job done with a fraction of the number of components and without having to wait for Spring to figure out how to instantiate a bazillion little objects that go into your application context. I kind of miss the simplicity of edit, f5, edit.

Anyway, end of rant.

Local Interaction demo on Youtube

I gave a demo of our system at a press event for Nokia a few weeks ago. Our PR people were busy filming and have put several short demo movies on Youtube. Including my demo and several other cool demos from colleagues in Nokia Research.

So enjoy.

Since I expect there will be people interested in learning more about this. I’ll try to give some explanation right here.

In the Youtube movie above, I am showing off our Local Interaction demo, which is a mobile website that shows off our indoor location based service platform. For the positioning we have collaborated with a different team that has been working on a indoor positioning system, which was demoed separately at the same event. Our demo leverages their technology and provides services on top.

Indoor location based services are similar to outdoor location based services in the sense that things like search, navigation, social networking, and media sharing are all things that can benefit from knowing where you are. In a nutshell, we have indoor location enhanced variants of these features integrated into our platform. However indoor location based services are different in the sense that they are much more relevant to people. People spend most of their lives indoors!

Having a platform is nice of course, but working code with real users is nicer. So we have spent most of this year preparing a trial in a real shopping mall here in Helsinki. The website you see has a nice polished UI, rich indoor content for the shopping mall and a set of useful services around the mall concept aimed at both consumers as well as proprietors of the mall, such as shop owners. The advantage of working with a real place is that it forces you to be very pragmatic about a lot of issues.

Doing a demo like ours is easy if you can assume everybody goes to the same building, uses the same phone, and just the right firmware version + your handcrafted application. A substantial part of the Ubiquitous & Pervasive Computing research community is perfectly happy with that sort of demo setups and proofs of concepts. This is why despite decades worth of demos, there’s no significant technology available for consumers beyond the boring old home automation kits and that sort of thing. It takes a bit more to make a real life impact.

A key motivation for our demo is that we don’t want to make such assumptions. Our requirements are: a capable mobile web browser (most modern Nokia phones and many phones from other vendors), and optionally, the indoor positioning client software installed. Like Location based services, our services are actually perfectly usable without positioning so we don’t actually require positioning. Being web based means that we can reach much more users than with a native application.

With everything we do we have the vision that eventually we don’t want to do this in just one shopping mall but world wide in a lot of public places. The primary goal of our trial is to gain experience rolling out this kind of technology and learning more about all the practical and technical obstacles there are for making this work on a more interesting scale in the future. We want to show that our platform is scalable in both a technical sense as well as a business sense. We want to kickoff a whole new market for indoor location based services. It doesn’t exist today, so we have to build the whole ecosystem from scratch.

For the more technical people. Our web platform is based on Python Django and integrates the positioning and other services using REST based services over HTTP. The friends feature we demo is realized using the Facebook API. We rely on Atom pub and Atom feeds internally. We intend to be mashup friendly so as to not have to reinvent every feature ourselves and instead integrate with many existing services. We have an Apache Lucene based search server that powers our indoor location based search feature. We use this feature quite heavily to look for indoor location tagged content such as photos, ads, vouchers, comments, etc. Finally, we use an off the shelf open source map server that serves up the indoor maps. In general, our philosophy is that there are already enough poorly reinvented wheels. We build what we need only if we can’t reuse what is out there. The web is out there and we use it.

For the researchers. A few articles that should be published in the next few months will outline the research we have on this. Meanwhile, you can refer to my publications page for a few workshop papers on a a predecessor of this demo that we did in 2007. Also we did a demo at the Internet of Things conference last April of our 2007 demo. And of course, there will be more details on the trial once we launch it.

About the project. This demo was developed as part of a Nokia project on an “Application Environment for Smart Spaces” which is currently running in Smart Space Lab, which is a part of Nokia Research Center. Headcount has varied quite a bit but currently we are around 8 people working full time on this. My role in this project is pushing architecture solutions and coordinating the development together with a small group of researchers and several excellent software engineers.

Java & Toys

After a few months of doing python development, which to me still feels like a straight jacket. I had some Java coding to do last week and promptly wasted a few hours checking out the latest toys, being:

  • Eclipse 3.4 M7
  • Hudson
  • Findbugs for Hudson

Eclipse 3.4 M7 is the first milestone I’ve tried for the upcoming Eclipse release. This is due to me not coding Java much lately; nothing wrong with it otherwise. Normally, I’d probably have switched around M4 already (at least did so for 3.2 and 3.3 cycles). In fact it is a great improvement and several nice productivity enhancements are included. My favorite one is the problem hover that now includes links to quick fixes. So instead of point, click, typing ctrl+0, arrow down (1..*), enter, you can now lean back and point & hover + click. Brilliant. I promptly used it to convert some 1.4 non generics based code into nice generics based code simply by tackling all the generics related warnings one by one essentially only touching the keyboard to suggest a few type parameters Eclipse couldn’t figure out. Introduce generic type parameter + infer generics refactorings are very helpful here. The code of course compiled and executed as expected. No bugs introduced and the test suite still runs fine. Around 5000 lines of code refactored in under 20 minutes. I still have some work to do to remove some redundant casts and to replace some while/for loops with foreach.

Other nice features are the new breadcrumps bar (brilliant!) and a new refactoring to create parameter classes for overly long lists of parameters on methods. Also nice is a refactoring to concatenate String concatenation into StringBuffer.append calls. Although StringBuilder is slightly faster for cases where you don’t need thread safe code (i.e most of the time). The rest is the usual amount of major and minor refinements that I care less about but are nice to have around anyway. One I imagine I might end up using a lot is quickfixes to sort out osgi bundle dependencies. You might recall me complaining about this some time ago. Also be sure to read Peter Kriens reply to this btw. Bnd is indeed nice but tools don’t solve what is in my view a kludge. Both the new eclipse feature and BND are workarounds for the problem that what OSGI is trying to do does not exist at  (and is somewhat at odd with) the Java type level.

Anyway, the second thing I looked into was Hudson, a nice server for continuous integration. It can checkout anything from a wide range of version control systems (subversion supported out of the box, several others through plugins) and run any script you like. It also understands maven and how to launch ant. With the right plugins you can then let it do quite useful things like compiling, running static code analyzers, deploying to a staging server, running test suites, etc. Unlike some stuff I evaluated a few years this actually worked right out of the box and was so easy to set up that I promptly did so for the project I’m working on. Together with loads of plugins that add all sorts of cool functionality, you have just ran out of excuses to not do continuous integration.

One of the plugins I’ve installed so far is an old favorite Findbugs which promptly drew my attention to two potentially dangerous bugs and a minor performance bug in my code reminding me that running this and making sure it doesn’t complain is actually quite important. Of all code checkers, findbugs provides the best mix between finding loads of stuff while not being obnoxious about it without a lot of configuration (like e.g. checkstyle and pmd require to shut the fuck up about stupid stuff I don’t care about) and while actually finding stuff that needs fixing.

While of course Java centric, you can teach Hudson other tricks as well.  So, next on my agenda is creating a job for our python code and hooking that up to pylint and possibly our django unit tests. There’s plugins around for both tasks.

Ubuntu at work

After my many, not so positive, reviews you might be surprised to learn that I’m actually using it at work now. Last week, a recent Mac convert dumped his ‘old’ laptop on my desk which happened to be a Lenovo T60 with a nice core duo processor, ATI graphics and 2 GB of memory. One of the reasons for the mac was that the thing kept crashing. This can either be a hardware or a software problem. I suspect the latter but I’ll have to see.

It so happens that my own windows desktop is increasingly less compatible with the linux based python development going on in the team I’m in. So even before taking the laptop, I was playing around with a vmware image to run some server stuff. My idea was to do the development on my desktop (using eclipse + pydev) and deploy on a vmware server with ubuntu and the right dependencies. Slow, but it should work, mostly.

So instead, last friday I installed Ubuntu 7.10 (only CD lying around) on the T60 and then upgraded it to 8.04 over the network. The scanning the mirror error I discribed earlier struck again. This time because of a corporate http proxy (gee only the entire fortune 500 list probably uses one: either add proxy settings to the installer or don’t attempt to use the network during installation). Solution: unplug network cable and let it time out.

Display detection actually worked this time. Anyway, I was only installing 7.10 to upgrade it to 8.10. Due to the scanning the mirror error, the installer had conveniently commented out all apt repositories. Of course there’s no GUI to fix that (except gedit). After fixing that and configuring the proxy in various places, I installed some 150MB worth of upgrades and then tried to convince the update manager to show me the upgrade to 8.04 dialog that various websites assure users should show up. It refused to in my case. So back to the commandline. Having had nasty experiences upgrading debian from the commandline inside X, I opted to do this in a terminal (alt+f2). Not sure if this is still needed but it can’t hurt. Anyway, this took more than an hour. In retrospect, downloading and burning a 8.04 image would have been faster.

So far so good. The thing booted and everything seemed to work. Except the wireless lan was nowhere to be seen (known issue with the driver apparently, haven’t managed to fix this yet). Compiz actually works and looks pretty cool. I have sound. I have network (wired).

Almost works as advertised one might say.

Until I plugged the laptop in its docking station and connected that with a dvi cable to the 1600×1200 external screen. Basically, I’m still struggling with this one. Out of the box, it seems impossible to scale beyond the native laptop screensize. What should happen is that either the dockingstation acts as a second screen or that it replaces the laptop screen with a much better resolution. Neither of this happens.

I finally edited xorg.conf to partially fix the resolution issue by adding 1600×1200 as an option. Only problem: compiz (the 3d accelerated GUI layer) doesn’t like this. I can only use this resolution with compiz disabled. If I enable it, basically it adds a black bar to the right and below. I wasted quite a bit of time trying to find a solution, so far without luck although I did manage to dig up a few links to compiz/ubuntu bugs (e.g. here) and forum posts suggesting I’m not alone. This seems to be mostly a combination of compiz immaturity and x.org autodetection having some cases where it just doesn’t work. With my home setup it didn’t get this far.

My final gripe concerns the amount of pixels Ubuntu/Gnome wastes. I ran into this running eclipse and noticing that compared to windows it includes a lot of white space, ugly fonts that seem to use a lot of space. Screen real estate really matters with eclipse due to the enormous amount of information the GUI is trying to present. Check here for some tips on how to fix eclipse. This issue was emphasized even more when I tried to access my 1400×1050 windows laptop using Ubuntu’s remote desktop vnc client and the realvnc server running on windows. The retard that designed the UI for that decided in all his wisdom to show the vnc session in a vnc application window with a huge & useless toolbar with a tab bar below that (!) with in that a single tab for my windows session. Add the Ubuntu menubar + task bar and there is no way that it can show a 1400×1050 desktop in a 1600×1200 screen without scrollbars (i.e. altogether I lose around 250-300 pixels of screen real estate). Pretty damn sad piece of UI design if you ask me. Luckily it has a full screen mode.

In case you are wondering why I bother to document this, the links are a great time saver next time I need to do this. Overall, despite all the hardware issues, I think I can agree with Mark Shuttleworth now that under controlled hardware circumstances this is a pretty good OS. Window 95 wasn’t ideal either and I managed to live with that for several years.