MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285607740 · doi:10.1145/3524860.3544410

Rethinking how distributed applications are built

2022· article· en· W4285607740 on OpenAlexaff
Till Rohrmann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicService-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityComputer sciencePopularitynobodyDistributed computingService (business)Computer securityDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our more and more connected world where people are used to managing their lives via digital services, it has become mandatory for a successful company to build applications that can scale with the popularity of the company's services. Scalability is not the only requirement but similarly important is that modern applications are highly available and fast because users are not willing to wait in our ever faster moving world. Due to this, we have seen a shift from the classic monolith towards micro service architectures which promise to be more easily scalable. The emergence of serverless functions further strengthened this trend more recently. By implementing a micro service architecture, application developers are all of a sudden exposed to the realm of distributed applications with its seemingly limitless scalability but also its pitfalls nobody tells you about upfront. So instead of solving business domain problems, developers find themselves fighting with race conditions, distributed failures, inconsistencies and in general a drastically increased complexity. In order to solve some of these problems, people introduce endless retries, timeouts, sagas and distributed transactions. These band aids can quickly result in a not so scalable system that is brittle and hard to maintain. The underlying problem is that developers are responsible for ensuring reliable communication and consistent state changes. Having a system that takes care of these aspects could drastically reduce the complexity of developing scalable distributed applications. By inverting the traditional control-flow from application-to-database to database-to-application, we can put the database in charge of ensuring reliable communication and consistent state changes and, thus, freeing the developer to think about it. In this keynote, I want to explore the idea of putting the database in charge of driving the application logic using the example of Stateful Functions, a library built on top of Apache Flink that follows this idea. I will explain how Stateful Functions achieves scalability and consistency but also what its limitations are. Based on these results, I would like to sketch the requirements for a runtime that can truly realise the full potential of Stateful Functions and discuss with you ideas how it could be implemented.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicService-Oriented Architecture and Web ServicesFrench-language works237,207