Month: October 2023

Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ

Developed by Nvidia for its own GPUs, MatX is a C++ library that aims to bring near-native performance in numerical computing using a high-level syntax not far from those available in Python scipy or MATLAB. Its latest release brings a number of new features, including the possibility to use transforms as operators, new operators such as upsample, downsample, pwelch, and more.

Transforms can now be used in any operator expression to evaluate them lazily using operator fusion. Operator fusion is a special feature in MatX aimed at improving performance by reducing memory access, which can be orders of magnitude more expensive than register access. Using operator fusion, an expression is not evaluated immediately, rather it is converted into a C++ type representing it that will be evaluated when its value is needed. In other words, instead of calculating the result of an expression such as:

(A = B * (cos(C) / D)).run();

you can store its value in an intermediate expression:

auto op = (B * (cos(C) / D));

combine it with other expressions and evaluate the result lazily when needed. This feature is achieved by overloading C++ operators. The latest release of MatX extends this possibility to transforms, such as in the expression:

(A = B * fft(C)).run();

where the compiler is able to understand the right side of the multiply operator is and FFT transform and the left side is another expression that can be fused with the former’s result at compile time.

It is worth noting that this new syntax for transforms used as operators brings a breaking change respect to how transforms were used previously. Specifically, whereas you used to write matmul(C, A, B, stream), you should now use (C = matmul(A,B)).run(stream).

Another new feature introduced in MatX 0.6.0 is a new polyphase channelizer operator, which separates an input signal into a set of channels. This is used for example to convert a high sample-rate wideband signal into multiple lower sample-rate narrowband signals.

New operators include upsample, used to upsample a signal by stuffing zeroes; downsample, used to downsample a signal by dropping samples; pwelch, used to visualize the spectrum of a signal without preprocessing first.

There is much more to the latest release of MatX than can be covered here. Do not miss the official release note if interested in the full detail.

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Over the past 3 months, 18 analysts have published their opinion on MongoDB MDB stock. These analysts are typically employed by large Wall Street banks and tasked with understanding a company’s business to predict how a stock will trade over the upcoming year.

In the last 3 months, 18 analysts have offered 12-month price targets for MongoDB. The company has an average price target of $437.17 with a high of $495.00 and a low of $250.00.

Below is a summary of how these 18 analysts rated MongoDB over the past 3 months. The greater the number of bullish ratings, the more positive analysts are on the stock and the greater the number of bearish ratings, the more negative analysts are on the stock

This average price target has increased by 4.24% over the past month.

Stay up to date on MongoDB analyst ratings.

Analysts work in banking and financial systems and typically specialize in reporting for stocks or defined sectors. Analysts may attend company conference calls and meetings, research company financial statements, and communicate with insiders to publish “analyst ratings” for stocks. Analysts typically rate each stock once per quarter.

Some analysts publish their predictions for metrics such as growth estimates, earnings, and revenue to provide additional guidance with their ratings. When using analyst ratings, it is important to keep in mind that stock and sector analysts are also human and are only offering their opinions to investors.

This article was generated by Benzinga’s automated content engine and reviewed by an editor.

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ

Transcript

Cianciolo: A famous president once said, about going to the Moon, we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. What did he mean because they’re hard? Why are they hard and what makes them so? These are some of the topics we’re going to cover in my talk, entitled, “NASA’s Return to the Moon: Managing Complexity in the Artemis Program.” My name is Alicia Cianciolo. I’m an Aerospace Engineer at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. For the past three years, almost four now, I’ve had the amazing opportunity to serve as the systems engineering team deputy for the Artemis’s Human Landing System program. We’re going to talk about that. I’m going to give you a little bit of perspective from that experience. You guys are all probably familiar with the Apollo programs of the ’60s and ’70s. In Greek mythology, did you know Apollo had a twin sister, and her name is Artemis? It sets the theme that we’ve been given from the administration, to maintain the leadership in space exploration and space sciences at NASA, by this time around landing the first woman and the first person of color on the surface of the Moon this decade. We’re going to do it different this time. We’re not just going to go for short stays and exploring for a few days. We’re actually going to start building a sustainable presence, with outposts and things that we can use to not only explore the Moon itself, but then prepare for future missions to Mars and beyond. We’re going to talk about three things. First, what is the Artemis program? Why is it complex? How we’re addressing some of those complexities, from my perspective in one of the programs.

What Is the Artemis Program?

What is Artemis? It’s actually a combination of about eight different programs. If you want to talk about starting with complexity, let’s start about talking about all these things. A lot of them are ground based. We have our launch systems and our communications and our operations. I’m going to talk about the things that leave Earth, and the first one is the Space Launch System. This is the new NASA rocket that is about 15% bigger than the Saturn V that sent the Apollo capsules to the Moon. It’s also part of something else that we have perched at the top of that, is the new Orion capsule, that will carry the crew to the Moon. It can take four people to the Moon or six people to the space station. We also worked with our European partners, European Space Agency, ESA, has provided the surface module for this capsule. Then you get to the project that I work on, the Human Landing System. Right now, we have contracted this out to SpaceX. As my position as the system engineering lead, we are responsible for making sure that SpaceX builds that vehicle to the NASA specifications.

Just recently, we announced a second lunar lander. Blue Origin will be our second provider to build a vehicle to land the people on the surface of the Moon. We like acronyms at NASA. This is EHP, which really stands for the Extra Vehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program. This is the spacesuits that they use to walk around on the surface. They are their own little spaceship, because they have to keep them alive and everything on the surface of the Moon. This is its own program. We just awarded this to Axiom this past year. Then, beyond that, we have the Gateway. The Gateway is another element of how we’re doing the Artemis missions differently. We’re designing what is essentially a small space station that will remain in orbit around the Moon. Then all these other vehicles will dock to it and go to the surface of the Moon from there, so we have a continual presence in the vicinity of the Moon. This is what Artemis is. We combine all of these different programs into different missions.

First, I’ll just give you a little bit more information about each of those specific programs. Again, this is the Space Launch System. There you see at the very top, the Orion capsule that will carry the four crew. Then the comparisons to the Saturn V, to the Statue of Liberty appropriately here in New York. Then its capability to carry more cargo to space than the shuttle. This is the NASA design rocket. We’ll move on to the Orion. Here it is compared to Apollo. You can see a difference in size, some of the statistics alongside. Essentially, the difference is it can carry four to six crew, a little bit bigger, a little bit more capable than the Apollo capsules. Then we move on to the Human Landing System. Again, this is the portion that I work on, the program that I am participating in. This is the SpaceX Starship vehicle. It is 15 stories high. The next time you go outside, look up and count 15 stories, and imagine, that’s what we’re delivering to the surface of the Moon. Yes, this is for real. It is a single stage lander, it will all land on the surface, and it will all ascend back up to take the crew back to Orion. Then, we have a second lander, Blue Origin. These will be the vehicles that take the people to the surface of the Moon. Then of course, Gateway. It’ll have a high powered solar electric propulsion module and habitat module for the crew, so then they can live there. Then you see a little image of the Orion coming to dock with it, then the Starship would also dock with it, and then the Blue Origin would also dock with it for future missions. This is the plan.

Let me show you how we combine these different elements into different Artemis missions. Artemis I included the Space Launch System and Orion. We’ve launched this. This launched last November, if you guys were following, November 16th. It launched from Florida. You can follow my numbers around, headed out to the Moon, actually deployed about 10 different SmallSats along the way. Once it got to the Moon, it did a powered flyby there at number nine, to put it into a very large orbit around the Moon where it could check out all the systems. I think it actually broke a record for the crew rated vehicle that was farthest from the Earth. It set some new records here. Went in orbit around, then came back, and at 13 did a powered flyby of the Moon and headed back to the Earth of the capsule, and the service modules. There are 15. You see they separate, and only the crew capsule comes back down. It splashed down off the coast of California. It was remarkably, amazingly successful.

Now we’re getting ready for Artemis II. Artemis II is scheduled to launch the end of next year, 2024. The thing we’re adding in this time is crew. Last time we checked out most of the base systems, now we’ll be testing out their breathing systems, the bathrooms, everything that the crew needs to go on. It looks a little bit different. We’re going to test a few other things with the crew on board. Unlike Artemis I that launched and headed straight to the Moon, this one’s going to launch into a very highly elliptical Earth orbit. That way they can test out some of the proximity operations, the docking and undocking in Earth orbit so that if something goes wrong, we can bring them back quickly. If all that works out, then at about number nine, there you see, they will do the large burn, send them out to the Moon. This is like an Apollo 8 style. It goes out, slingshots and comes back just to test out all the systems for the crew. They will not be going to the surface of the Moon in this mission. It’s the first crewed test flight since Apollo. Just in April, we announced the crew members for this mission. Right there in the middle is Reid Wiseman, he will serve as the commander. We have Victor Glover as the pilot. Christina Koch, the mission specialist. Our Canadian friend who did not start the fires, gets to go with us on this first mission, Jeremy Hansen, so he’ll be joining us on this.

Then, we finally get to Artemis III, which is the one I’ve been working on for the past few years. You can see here where it’s getting increasingly complex. We’re going to add in the Human Landing System. This will be the Starship for Artemis III. Then of course we’ll need the spacesuits for the crew, so we’ll add those in as well. This gets a little crazier, a little bit different. Starts out similar to Artemis I. You launch from Florida, in the SLS and Orion, it heads out to the Moon, only this time. Unlike Apollo that stayed in an equatorial orbit, we’re going to transition to what we’re calling, and I’m going to rename it, a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit. It’s that very large, gray orbit that you see there. We like it because we can see Earth from it at all times. We can communicate with anything in orbit all the time, but it does complicate some other things, and we’ll talk about that. Once Orion gets out there, it will perform that burn, get into that very large elliptical orbit. Then it will have to meet up at rendezvous and dock with Starship that will already be there. It will have to go out first. It’ll stay in that orbit until it does a burn. There you can see the descent where it will do a burn. They will undock, and Starship will descend to the Moon. It will then transfer to the upper right there into a low lunar orbit so it goes from a very large orbit to a smaller one, again, to check out all the systems, make sure everything works. Then once we’re sure, we’ll do a burn and land at the South Pole this time. We’ll talk about why we land at the South Pole. They’re planning to spend six-and-a-half days there for Artemis III. Then, once the six-and-a-half days are over, they’ll do a launch off the surface back to the low lunar orbit. Then at the right time they’ll depart that and rendezvous and dock with Orion in the very large NRHO, which we’re going to call the Gateway Orbit. When Gateway is there, it’ll be its orbit and it will be easier to say as well. That’s the plan.

I mentioned we have to have Starship out there first, and so a little bit of planning needs to go into getting Starship out there. Here’s the current plan for getting Starship to the Moon. We’re going to start clear over on the left. The plan right now is to launch a storage depot, basically an empty large gas tank. We’re going to launch it to orbit. SpaceX will launch it to orbit. Then they will launch propellant aggregation tankers, and they’ll send a few of those up there. They will rendezvous and dock. They will transfer propellant until the storage depot is full. When the storage depot is full, then and only then will we launch Starship. Starship will rendezvous, dock with it, and then transfer the propellant from the depot to Starship. When it’s full and everything looks good, then we’ll send Starship to that NRHO, that Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit, that Gateway Orbit around the Moon. We’ll check everything out there. Only then, when everything’s checked out, will we allow the Artemis III SLS and Orion to launch. When that goes, then, of course, Orion makes it to the Moon, rendezvous with Starship to crew, jump into Starship. Starship goes to the surface. Then they spend their six days there. Will head back to Orion, rendezvous and dock, transfer back to Orion, undock, and they’ll come back to Earth.

Managing Complexity 1: Mission Segments

What can go wrong? This is the challenge that we’ve been given for Artemis III. I will stop here and just talk quickly about managing complexity, number one in this. As a system engineer, my job is to basically make sure my team can certify this vehicle for flight. We are not building this. We are purchasing this flight from SpaceX, but it has to meet our requirements. I have a team that we have divided their mission into segments. I have a team that manages just the uncrewed segment, everything that happens in this vehicle without crew on it. They have to know everything about it. Then when we get to certifying it for flight, they’re the ones that have to basically sign off. I have a team that is the rendezvous and docking team. They’re in charge of everything that happens up to and at docking and then undocking. I also have a team that does docked ops. They are making sure that our vehicle is checked out and works while we’re docked with Orion for this whole mission. Of course, then you have to undock. Then we have the deorbit, descent and landing team. This is actually where I started out. In fact, the first 15 years of my career was doing entry, descent and landing for Mars missions. I got to work on the Curiosity. I was part of the landing team for Curiosity and InSight Landers. We’d spent a lot of time developing the new technologies to go from landing 300 kilograms to 900 kilograms on the surface of the Moon.

NASA, in the middle of about 2015 came to us and said, what if we wanted to send humans to Mars, what entry technologies would we have to invest in now to make that happen? I spent about five years working with a team to develop those advanced entry, descent and landing technologies, which we were just able to start flight testing this year, which was really fabulous, and last year. The point was, we had figured out a lot of the things that NASA needed to invest in. Then in 2019, they said, we’re going to go back to the Moon, so can you come and bring all that stuff with you, so we can test it at the Moon, and make sure it works, so when we go to Mars, it’s ready to go. That’s where I started out was in the deorbit, descent and landing group here. After about a year, they moved me on up to system engineering. Now I’m kind of over all these. That’s just how I fit into this and how I got to be the system engineering team deputy. Then we have a team that’s solely just concerned about what happens on the surface. Starship has an elevator. They have to make sure that all the requirements for getting the crew out of this 15-story building, and to the surface, everything works. Of course, then we have the ascent, making sure that we get back to orbit. Then of course, rendezvous and docking. Then we have another docked operations, until they separate and come back. This is the team that I manage. There’s about 40 of us that take care of each of the segments. Then we have certain ones that run across all the segments like software, communications, the integrated testing, so then we have a lot of just integrated groups, in addition to the segment leads. This is one way we’re trying to manage some of those complexities, break it into, obviously, smaller pieces.

Managing Complexity 2: Contracts

There’s other things besides just the fact that this is a hard technical problem that we’re trying to solve, we got extra challenges on the way that the contracts were written. I won’t go into too much detail, but I’ll just give you a feel for the traditional way, and the new way. Orion and SLS, the Space Launch System, were contracted under what we call the cost-plus model. The companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, would give us their estimate for how much it would cost to develop this. Then we would get the real cost, and we have to go ahead and pay that. Sometimes they would be a little bit different. In this particular case, NASA owns the vehicle. We own the vehicle. We determine who flies on it. We own all of it. We control the whole flight thing. This program began in 2011, when they retired the shuttle. These are built. They flew. We’ve already flown Artemis I. That’s a known entity. Then you have the Human Landing System and the crew suits that we just awarded the contracts in the last couple of years. These are not built. They’re working on them. They are not built, but we have requirements. They were developed under a firm fixed price. We awarded SpaceX just about $3 billion to deliver us this vehicle. They have to do it for that. It can take longer, but we aren’t going to pay them any more. If we change any of the requirements, we will pay the difference. It’s the same thing for the spacesuits, we’ve got the requirements. They have to build them to our specifications. We can’t tell them how to build it. There are very different perspectives here. We have a lot of the folks who’ve been working on these programs for 10 years, and then we come and tell them, just because you can’t do something, we can’t change our requirements, it’s going to cost us.

Here’s one example. Anybody go camping in an RV? There are three very important tanks in an RV: there is your fresh water tank, there’s your gray water tank, and there’s your black water tank. Orion when it was built, was not planning for this mission. The Starship didn’t exist. They didn’t know it was going to have to dock with it. It was planning to go to a space habitat somewhere, and when they docked, they would use their bathroom. Orion did not include a black tank. They were just going to vent any urine that happens all the way on their mission. We said, “You’re going to come and dock with the Starship. You can’t vent urine on our solar panels because they have to work when they’re on the surface.” They’re like, “We don’t have a tank. We don’t have any other thing.” They’re like, “We’re built, so you guys fix it.” We’re like, “We can’t fix your venting problem. You want to shoot them the other way.” This is stuff we have to work out because they’re built and we’re not. This is really interesting. After six months of figuring this out, one guy finally says in a meeting, fine, when we dock you can use our bathroom. Until then, you’re just not going to use your bathroom while we’re docking so that nothing can destroy our outside because we can’t go clean it up. They finally agreed, but now they have to add a valve to their system. By the time our matrix organizations are not lined up, by the time you found the person who could design the valve, it took literally six months to solve this problem. This is one of the examples of why this is complicated. The hardest part of going to the Moon is talking to people and getting people to understand each other’s languages. Just a few examples of how we manage complexity. This stuff is for real.

Why the Lunar South Pole?

I’m going to change gears just a little bit now and talk about why we want to go to the South Pole. If you remember the Apollo missions? Here’s a picture of the Moon. There’s Apollo 11. If you notice, it’s right along the equator, and it was right after dawn. Again, 12:00 at the equator, right after dawn. It had 14 days of sunlight covering the whole landing site. Of course, then 13 didn’t happen so you wait a little bit longer. Then we’ll get to 14. You can see they’re all generally located in the equatorial region at the beginning of the full sunlight for a whole lunar day. In 2009, the LRO mission and the LCROSS mission, because the South Pole and part of the North Pole don’t ever see the sun to evaporate any water, they wanted to see if there was actually water in those permanently dark regions at the South Pole. What they did is they crashed part of their third stage into the South Pole. Then they flew the LCROSS probe through it and measured an amazing amount of water. Then they said, if there is water at the South Pole, because there’s not water at the equator, we could use that water. We could use it for breathing and drinking and propellant. If there’s really as much as we think there is there, we can mine it and then use it for propellant, and launching off the Moon in 1/6th G is a whole lot better than taking it from Earth. Now, this is where we get to the whole Artemis program sustainable missions. We go and we stay and we figure out how to mine these things. Then we build using the Gateway, as really that launching off point for future missions to Mars and beyond. That’s really the reason we’re looking at going to the South Pole for Artemis.

Managing Complexity 3: Landing Requirements

The South Pole is a little challenging. We’re going to talk about managing complexity number three, the landing requirements. Here we go to the Moon, we’re going to roll to the South Pole, and we’re going to talk about what’s different between landing at the equator, and landing at the South Pole. First thing you notice is that there’s not a smooth terrain really anywhere at the South Pole. This will be the lighting in one month as it moves around one day, so one lunar day. It changes literally every hour, where the shadows are. Science has identified and everybody has identified some of the areas we’d be really interested in going to look. Those boxes are shown there. These are our top 13 regions right now for where we would like to go on the surface of the Moon. As part of the human landing team, I of course have a vested interest in making sure we find a safe place to land. Of course, on the Mars missions, especially for Mars InSight, we had this giant parking lot on Mars. We thought, there’s got to be someplace on the Moon we can land that’s generally safe and large. It turns out, that’s really hard.

I’ll walk through some of the requirements we have for landing this vehicle safely. The first one is, we want to land within 6 degrees of the pole, because that’s where the water is. That’s the circle we’re trying to land in. Because we don’t want this 15-story building to tip over, we have to land on slopes that are less than, let’s say, 10 degrees, 10-degree slope, so pretty flat. This is color coded, so I’m going to take away the colors. Green is good. Green is pretty flat, and blue is steep. You look at it and you’re like, “There’s a lot of green, we could find some pretty good places to land in the green.” Then you start going through some of the other requirements. The crew in those big spacesuits, they can’t walk on any slopes greater than 20 degrees, because then it’s kind of like the Princess Bride, As You Wish, and they just roll down. We’re going to black out anything that has 20-degree slopes. Then we also have to be able to communicate direct with Earth, because there’s no relay yet. There will be relays for Artemis IV and V, but we don’t have a relay yet, so we have to communicate with Earth. Then we went ahead and we shadowed out anything that doesn’t have more than 25% visibility with Earth, because we’re not going to be able to land there. We have to be on the surface for six-and-a-half days, and it has to be lit the entire time. That’s the other trick. We’re starting to look through, it has to be lit the entire time, so we also need to block out all the places that don’t have any sun. You’re starting to see, our areas of green are disappearing, because they were the big flat areas at the bottom of the craters. In each of our boxes, the green areas are getting smaller. This is turning out to be a really big challenge.

Managing Complexity 4: Gateway Orbit

There were some additional ones with the environment that we’re being asked to fly in for Artemis that they didn’t have to deal with in Apollo. One is this Gateway Orbit that I’m just going to call it. Here’s a little video of what it looks like. On the left, it’s looking up at the pole of the Moon. The yellow lines represent basically our entry trajectory path. Because as I play this, you’ll see how the Moon in its vibration and it moves, and then the NRHO, the Gateway Orbit moves. Depending on what day you come in, you’re going to fly across a different path on the ground. Now you have to make maps of all those different paths. If you miss a launch date, and you have to go to a next one, you can’t go back to the same one. The other one is upper right, is just showing you the view from the Earth of the Moon, how it wobbles and how the South Pole just goes out of view for two weeks and comes back. For two weeks, you can’t even see the Earth, so you can’t go during those times. You’re starting to see this Venn diagram of things that just aren’t overlapping. It’s starting to get really complicated. In the meantime, Orion will be in the big yellow circle that can see Earth all the time, but can’t communicate directly with the Starship on the surface. That’s just some statistics for this orbit. It’s a six-and-a-half day. You can see it from the Earth. It’s got a 1500-kilometer periapsis and then 70,000-kilometer apoapsis, which is the furthest point. Just because of the way the Earth and the Moon are phased, SLS and Orion can only get out there on 28 opportunities throughout the year, even though there are 58 total opportunities in this particular orbit. Again, a few more things we have to contend with.

Addressing Complexities

There are a couple other things. Like I mentioned, the ground tracks will be different each time, so we have to make more maps to load on board. I’ve been landing things on Mars for a few years. We had to land things in kilometers, miles. We had very large parking lots. Even with the Perseverance Lander that did do precision landing, it was able to do it on a parachute coming straight down very slowly so it could look around. It did, but it didn’t have a preflight mark that it was trying to hit before it landed. It had a very big footprint before it got there. We are actually trying to land something, going from something the size of cities to trying to land something in a stadium, and do it on the first try. Our target, once we find a landing spot, to land within our requirement, is to land within 100 meters of it. Because we have passive TRN, they have to use cameras, and so our approach lighting has to be lit too so that we can see those maps and then know exactly where we are. Because there’s no GPS at the Moon. This is a very easy problem at Earth because we have GPS. There’s no GPS at the Moon, so we have to basically learn where we’re at by flying over it and taking pictures. Then, like I said, the lighting at the pole is different every opportunity. If we miss an opportunity one month, and you try to go back the next month, that spot may not be lit at all, it may be completely dark the next time. We have to have backup sites. If anyone tells you they know exactly where we’re going at the South Pole, call them a liar, because we don’t. It’s really hard. We’re still looking at this. We don’t have a designated launch date. You saw how many things have to go right before we get to a launch date. Here we are. This is hard.

It is not unsolvable. These are totally solvable things, and we will get there. Then we will do Artemis IV, and Artemis V. It’s going to be fantastic and wonderful. I will just show you a little bit, because remember we’ve added in Gateway now. With Artemis IV, and like I said, V is very similar, one will be Blue Origin, one will be SpaceX. This time Gateway has to get to orbit first, then Starship or Blue has to get to orbit. Then we will launch the SLS and Orion with the crew. Right now, our vehicles once they are in orbit around the Moon, and especially SpaceX, has to survive for 100 days. If we don’t get everything else out there in 100 days, technically, that vehicle can’t be used. There’s just a lot of things that go into. If you’re thinking you have a really hard problem, this is a really hard problem. This is our generation’s opportunity to go do great things at the Moon. This is not our grandparent’s Apollo mission. This is ours. We’re going to go and we want to bring all of you with us.

See more presentations with transcripts

Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ

This week’s Java roundup for October 16th, 2023 features news from OpenJDK, JDK 22, BellSoft, Oracle VS Code extension, WildFly 30, Payara Platform, MicroProfile 6.1, EclipseCon and releases for GraalVM Native Build Tools, Spring Boot, Spring Security, Spring Authorization Server, Spring Cloud Dataflow, Micronaut, Quarkus, Open Liberty, Apache TomEE, Apache Tomcat, JHipster and JHipster Lite.

OpenJDK

JEP 456, Unnamed Variables and Patterns, has been promoted from Candidate to Proposed to Target for JDK 22. This JEP proposes to finalize this feature after one previous round of preview: JEP 443, Unnamed Patterns and Variables (Preview), delivered in JDK 21. This feature will “enhance the language with unnamed patterns, which match a record component without stating the component’s name or type, and unnamed variables, which can be initialized but not used.” Both of these are denoted by the underscore character as in r instanceof _(int x, int y) and r instanceof _. The review is expected to conclude on October 26, 2023.

JDK 22

Build 20 of the JDK 22 early-access builds was made available this past week featuring updates from Build 19 that include fixes to various issues. More details on this build may be found in the release notes.

For JDK 22, developers are encouraged to report bugs via the Java Bug Database.

BellSoft

Concurrent with Oracle’s Critical Patch Update (CPU) for October 2023, BellSoft has released CPU patches for versions 21.0.0.0.1, 17.0.8.1.1, 11.0.20.1.1, 8u391, 7u401 and 6u401 of Liberica JDK, their downstream distribution of OpenJDK. In addition, Patch Set Update (PSU) versions 21.0.1, 17.0.9, 11.0.21 and 8u392, containing CPU and non-critical fixes, have also been released.

Oracle

Oracle has introduced their Oracle Java Platform Extension for Visual Studio Code that brings full-featured Java development (edit/compile/debug/test cycle) for Maven and Gradle projects to VSCode along with other features such as a project explorer, debugging and launch configurations, a JDK downloader and supported refactorings.

GraalVM

On the road to version 1.0, Oracle Labs has released version 0.9.28 of Native Build Tools, a GraalVM project consisting of plugins for interoperability with GraalVM Native Image. This latest release provides: revert to the previous version of the escapeArg() method defined in the NativeImageUtils class to fix issues with Windows path escaping; improve detection of major JDK versions; and a removal of the use of the deprecated Gradle JavaPluginConvention class and replace with the JavaPluginExtension class. More details on this release may be found in the changelog.

Spring Framework

The first release candidate of Spring Boot 3.2.0 provides bug fixes, improvements in documentation, dependency upgrades and new features such as: break the cycle between TransactionManagerCustomizers class and TransactionManager interface; auto-configure the HikariCheckpointRestoreLifecycle class for a user-defined instance of an HikariDataSource class; and support for adding a Gradle Provider interface in the buildInfo Gradle task. More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

Similarly, versions 3.1.5, 3.0.12 and 2.7.17 of Spring Boot have been released featuring bug fixes, improvements in documentation, dependency upgrades, and the most notable change: correcting the behavior of the spring.jms.listener.concurrency property in which the maximum number of users was set to the value of this property and the minimum number of consumers was always set to 1. This is in contrast with the documentation, and developers should set their desired maximum value in the spring.jms.listener.max-concurrency property. More details on these releases may be found in the release notes for version 3.1.5, version 3.0.12 and version 2.7.17.

The first and second release candidates of Spring Security 6.2.0 along with service releases 6.1.5, 6.0.8 and 5.8.8 all deliver bug fixes and dependency upgrades. New features in all of these versions are: document how to publish an AuthenticationManager @Bean without the now deprecated WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter class; and use of the Gradle Version Catalog for dependencies. New features in the release candidate include: Servlet Path support for the AuthorizeHttpRequestsConfigurer class; and allow instances of the AuthenticationConverter interface to be settable in the BasicAuthenticationFilter class. More details on this release may be found in the release notes for version 6.2.0-RC2, version 6.2.0-RC1, version 6.1.5, version 6.0.8 and version 5.8.8.

The first release candidate of Spring Authorization Server 1.2.0 ships with dependency upgrades and a new feature that adds a reusable default authentication failure handler class, OAuth2ErrorAuthenticationFailureHandler. More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

Similarly, versions 1.1.3, 1.0.4 and 0.4.4 of Spring Authorization Server have been released featuring minor bug fixes and dependency upgrades to respective versions of: Spring Boot 3.1.4, 3.0.11 and 2.7.16; Spring Security 6.1.5, 6.0.8 and 5.8.8; and Spring Framework 6.0.13, 6.0.13 and 5.3.30. More details on these releases may be found in the release notes for version 1.1.3, version 1.0.4 and version 0.4.4.

The release of Spring Cloud Dataflow 2.11.1 delivers notable changes such as: ensure that the Launch API in the TaskOperations interface is backwards compatible; add common security configuration modules to dependency management that fixed issues after creating a monorepo; and dependency upgrades to json-smart 2.4.11, Nimbus JOSE + JWT 9.31, snappy-java 1.1.10.4 and Apache Commons Compress 1.24.0 to address various CVEs. More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

WildFly

Red Hat has released version 30.0.0 of WildFly featuring: support for JDK 21 as WildFly 30 has passed the TCKs as a compatible implementation of the Jakarta EE Core Profile. This release also supports most of the MicroProfile 6.0 specifications, but cannot claim to be a compatible implementation as Red Hat does not support the MicroProfile Metrics specification. It is important to note that Red Hat recommends developers remain running their applications on JDK 17 and JDK 11 because they haven’t certified WildFly 30 on the Jakarta EE Platform and Jakarta EE Web Profile. Despite this, Red Hat says that “WildFly 30 is a great choice for evaluating how your applications run on SE 21.” More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

Payara

Payara has released their October 2023 edition of the Payara Platform that includes Community Edition 6.2023.10, Enterprise Edition 6.7.0 and Enterprise Edition 5.56.0 featuring: bug fixes; a dependency upgrade to the aforementioned json-smart 2.4.11 in the OIDC client to address CVE-2023-1370, a vulnerability a vulnerability in json-smart where parsing too many nested JSON structured arrays and objects, due to no defined limit, could cause a stack overflow and crash the software; and a new timeout option, --timeout, to the Payara domain commands such as start-domain and stop-domain. More details on these versions may be found in the release notes for Community Edition 6.2023.10 and Enterprise Edition 6.7.0 and Enterprise Edition 5.56.0.

MicroProfile

The MicroProfile Working Group has released version 6.1 of MicroProfile featuring updates to specifications: MicroProfile Config 3.1, MicroProfile Metrics 5.1 and MicroProfile Telemetry 1.1.

Notable changes in MicroProfile Config include: an update to the TCK to align with breaking changes in the Jakarta EE Contexts and Dependency Injection 4.0 specification that include an empty beans.xml file and change in bean discovery mode from all to annotated; and the MissingValueOnObserverMethodInjectionTest class, that asserts a DeploymentException, fails a different reason due to the the ConfigObserver bean being defined as @ApplicationScoped (proxyable) and final (not proxyable). More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

Notable changes in MicroProfile Metrics include: introduce MicroProfile Config properties that customize how Histogram and Timer metrics track and output statistics for percentiles and histogram-buckets; define the @RegistryScope annotation as a qualifier; and include a new recommendation for multi-application deployments to use the mp.metrics.defaultAppName property to eliminate the problems caused by the requirement to have consistent tag sets for multi-app application server implementations. More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

Notable changes in MicroProfile Telemetry 1.1 include: a clarification of which API classes must be available to users; an implementation of tests that is not timestamp dependent; and a clarification of the behavior of the Span and Baggage beans when the current span or baggage changes. More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

The initial compatible implementation for MicroProfile 6.1 is Open Liberty 23.0.0.10-beta.

Micronaut

The Micronaut Foundation has disclosed a vulnerability in the OAuth2 section of their Micronaut Security module. CVE-2023-36820, a vulnerability in which the IdTokenClaimsValidator class skips the audience claim validation if the token is issued by the same identity issuer/provider resulting in improper access control.

The foundation has also released version 4.1.5 of the Micronaut Framework featuring Micronaut Core 4.10.0 and updates to modules: Micronaut AWS, Micronaut RxJava 3, Micronaut Discovery Client, Micronaut Reactor, Micronaut Object Storage. There was also a dependency upgrade to Netty 4.1.100.Final. More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

Quarkus

Versions 3.2.7 and 2.16.12 of Quarkus primarily address several CVEs:

• CVE-2023-44487, a vulnerability in which Tomcat’s implementation of HTTP/2 was vulnerable to the rapid reset attack causing a denial of service that was typically manifested as an OutOfMemoryError.
• CVE-2023-39410, a vulnerability in Apache Avro that would allow an attacker to deserialize untrusted or corrupted data resulting in consuming memory beyond the allowed constraints and therefore leading to the system to run out of memory.
• CVE-2023-34454, a vulnerability in snappy-java that would allow an attacker to take advantage of unchecked multiplications causing a possible integer overflow resulting in an unrecoverable fatal error.

More details on these releases may be found in the changelogs for version 3.2.7 and version 2.6.12.

The Quarkus team has also documented their journey in addressing CVE-2023-44487 that includes an overview of the CVE, threads vs. event loops and their solution.

Open Liberty

IBM has released 23.0.0.10 of Open Liberty featuring support for JDK 21 and an update to the featureUtility command that now verifies feature authenticity by default when a new feature is installed into Open Liberty. This replaces the verified checksums, but checksums do not ensure the authenticity of downloaded files.

Apache Software Foundation

The release of Apache TomEE 9.1.1 ships with bug fixes, dependency upgrades and the most notable change that drops support for their own shade of CFX in favor of Apache CXF 4.0. This release also includes fixes and backports for several CVEs:

• CVE-2023-34981, a vulnerability in which a regression in the fix for Bug 66512 could lead to an information leak if a response did not include any HTTP headers, then no Apache JServ Protocol (AJP) SEND_HEADERS message would be sent for the response. This was fixed in Bug 66591 and developers are encouraged to migrate to minimal versions 11.0.0-M6, 10.1.9, 9.0.75 or 8.5.89.
• CVE-2023-42795, an exposure that occurs when recycling various internal objects, including the request and the response, prior to re-use by the next request/response, an error could cause Tomcat to skip some parts of the recycling process leading to information leaking from the current request/response to the next.
• CVE-2023-35116, a vulnerability in Jackson Databind 2.15.2 and below such that an attacker can craft an object that uses cyclic dependencies that may result in a denial of service. It is important to note that this CVE is in dispute because FasterXML, creators of Jackson, believe that the steps to construct a cyclic data structure with an attempt to serialize it cannot be achieved by an external attacker.

More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

Versions 10.1.15 and 8.5.95 of Apache Tomcat both feature notable fixes: a regression with HTTP compression after refactoring code; and a regression in the clean-up of unnecessary use of fully qualified class names in versions 10.1.14 and 8.5.94 that broke the JDBC pool. More details on these releases may be found in the release notes for version 10.1.15 and version 8.5.95.

JHipster

The first release candidate of JHipster 8.0.0 provides bug fixes, dependency upgrades and notable changes such as: the JHipster-generated equals() method is now safe to use in Hibernate; improved code coverage of the MetricsComponent class; and improved support of JHipster Blueprints. More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

Version 0.45.0 of JHipster Lite has been released featuring bug fixes, improvements in documentation, dependency upgrades and new features/improvements such as: a new YamlFileSpringPropertiesHandler class in preparation for supporting YAML configuration; new toString() methods added to various JHipster classes for improved debugging; and support for processing multi-line comments in Spring property files. More details on this release may be found in the release notes.

The JHipster team also celebrated their 10th anniversary this past week. The very first commit was published on October 21, 2013.

EclipseCon

EclipseCon 2023 was held at the Forum am Schlosspark and the Film-und-Medienzentrum (FMZ) in Ludwigsburg, Germany this past week featuring speakers from the Java Community who presented on topics such as: Automotive & Mobility, IOT & Edge, Open Source Best Practices, Programming Languages & Runtimes, and Tools & IDEs. The conference also featured a Community Day that brings together like-minded individuals, passionate experts, and curious minds from all walks of life for meetings, project updates, workshops, presentations or panel discussions. Ivar Grimstad, Jakarta EE Developer Advocate at the Eclipse Foundation posted his daily summaries for Community Day, Day One, Day Two and Day Three.

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

© Reuters. Walgreens To Rally Around 42%? Here Are 10 Top Analyst Forecasts For Monday

Benzinga – by Lisa Levin, Benzinga Editor.

Top Wall Street analysts changed their outlook on these top names. For a complete view of all analyst rating changes, including upgrades and downgrades, please see our analyst ratings page

• B of A Securities cut Alcoa Corporation (NYSE: AA) price target from $35 to $25. B of A Securities analyst Lawson Winder downgraded the stock from Buy to Neutral. Alcoa shares fell 3.3% to $23.23 in pre-market trading. See how other analysts view this stock.
• Citigroup slashed the price target for EOG Resources, Inc. (NYSE: EOG) from $144 to $135. Citigroup analyst Scott Gruber downgraded the stock from Buy to Neutral. EOG Resources shares fell 1.1% to $131.75 in pre-market trading. See how other analysts view this stock.
• Evercore ISI Group lowered Edison International (NYSE: EIX) price target from $74 to $68. Evercore ISI Group analyst Durgesh Chopra upgraded the stock from In-Line to Outperform. Edison International shares rose 0.1% to $62.72 in pre-market trading. See how other analysts view this stock.
• Barclays slashed the price target for McDonald’s Corporation (NYSE: MCD) from $345 to $315. Barclays analyst Jeffrey Bernstein maintained an Overweight rating. McDonald’s shares fell 0.3% to $257.31 in pre-market trading. See how other analysts view this stock.
• JP Morgan increased the price target for Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (NASDAQ: WBA) from $27 to $30. JP Morgan analyst Lisa Gill upgraded the stock from Neutral to Overweight. Walgreens shares rose 1.4% to close at $21.26 on Friday. See how other analysts view this stock.
• Needham cut LivaNova PLC (NASDAQ: LIVN) price target from $71 to $62. Needham analyst Mike Matson maintained a Buy rating. LivaNova shares rose 0.9% to close at $49.41 on Friday. See how other analysts view this stock.
• Piper Sandler cut Salesforce, Inc. (NYSE: CRM) price target from $268 to $232. Piper Sandler analyst Brent Bracelin downgraded the stock from Overweight to Neutral. Salesforce shares fell 1.9% to $199.95 in pre-market trading. See how other analysts view this stock.
• Keybanc slashed the price target for MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ: MDB) from $495 to $440. Keybanc analyst Michael Turits maintained an Overweight rating. MongoDB shares fell 1.2% to $342.02 in pre-market trading. See how other analysts view this stock.
• Stifel boosted Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) price target from $27 to $32. Stifel analyst Mark Kelley upgraded the stock from Hold to Buy. Pinterest shares fell 2.2% to close at $25.96 on Friday. See how other analysts view this stock.
• Rosenblatt cut RingCentral, Inc. (NYSE: RNG) price target from $52 to $35. Rosenblatt analyst Catharine Trebnick downgraded the stock from Buy to Neutral. RingCentral shares fell 2.5% to $26.95 in pre-market trading. See how other analysts view this stock.

Check This Out: Top 4 Consumer Stocks That May Crash This Quarter

© 2023 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Read the original article on Benzinga

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ

The latest release of .NET 8 Release Candidate 2 brings significant additions and changes to ASP.NET Core. This release is planned to be the last one before the final version of .NET 8 is released. The most notable enhancements for this release of ASP.NET Core are related to the Blazor alongside the updates regarding the Identity, API Authoring, SignalR, and new SPA templates for CLI.

The HTTP logging middleware now offers enhanced extensibility with several new features. These include HttpLoggingFields.Duration, which measures processing time in milliseconds and is added to the HttpLoggingFields.All set. Another addition is HttpLoggingOptions.CombineLogs, which consolidates all enabled logs into one entry at the end of a request/response, encompassing request, request body, response, response body, and duration.

Additionally, the introduction of IHttpLoggingInterceptor allows for customizing logged details by implementing and registering this service. Endpoint-specific log settings are applied first, with further customisation options for inspecting request/response data, enabling/disabling fields, adjusting body logging, and adding custom parameters to logs. As reported multiple IHttpLoggingInterceptors can be registered and will execute in the order they are added,

Regarding the other Servers & middleware topic changes in RC 2, the ASP.NET Core now uses the latest version of the IdentityModel libraries, which contains the more performant JsonWebTokenHandler. These libraries enable enhanced performance and API consistency while ensuring full compatibility with Native Ahead-of-Time (AOT) compilation.

Changes regarding the API authoring include support for form files in new form binding, in RC2, the form binding implementation now supports binding types that contain an IFormFile property. Also, the SignalR support for stateful reconnect was previously introduced in .NET 8 previews. This feature has now been extended to the TypeScript client, improving its capabilities.

The Release Candidate 2 includes a lot of the changes and improvements regarding the Blazor, so the Blazor Web App template now offers global interactive render mode, making the entire app, including the router and layout, interactive. Furthermore, in .NET 8 RC2, changes have been made to the Blazor WebAssembly project templates. The Blazor WebAssembly App template is now named Blazor WebAssembly Standalone App since it no longer includes the ASP.NET Core hosted option.

For ASP.NET Core-hosted Blazor apps, the Blazor Web App template with the WebAssembly interactive render mode should be used. The Blazor WebAssembly App Empty template has been replaced with an option within the Blazor WebAssembly template for adding sample page content, and the template structure now aligns with the Blazor Web App template.

Other Blazor changes are related to File scoped @rendermode Razor directive, enhanced navigation & form handling improvements, orm model binding improvements, and from this release the developers can now access the current HttpContext as a cascading parameter from a static server component and there is a method to persist and read component state in a Blazor Web App using the existing PersistentComponentState service.

Blazor has introduced support for injecting keyed services using the [Inject] attribute. This enables the scoping of service registration and consumption when using dependency injection, providing more flexibility in managing services. Next, Blazor now supports the cancel and close events on the dialog HTML element alongside support for a custom error page for use with the ASP.NET Core exception handling middleware.

Furthermore, regarding the Identity in .NET 8 RC2, developers can now easily generate a full Blazor-based Identity UI by choosing the “Individual Accounts” authentication option. This can be done through Visual Studio’s project dialog for Blazor Web Apps or via the command line with the following command:

dotnet new blazor -au Individual

Note that in Visual Studio, the Identity UI is scaffolded for a SQL Server database, while the command-line version uses SQLite by default and includes a pre-created SQLite database for identity management.

The initial blog post outlined specific known issues, with plans for resolution in the upcoming .NET 8 release. Additionally, the original announcement blog post contains an engaging comment section, encouraging interaction between the community and the .NET team. It is advisable for readers to delve into it for valuable additional insights about the RC 2 release.

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Allspring Global Investments Holdings LLC trimmed its position in MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB – Free Report) by 3.6% during the second quarter, according to the company in its most recent 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The fund owned 588,568 shares of the company’s stock after selling 21,807 shares during the period. Allspring Global Investments Holdings LLC owned approximately 0.83% of MongoDB worth $241,897,000 as of its most recent SEC filing.

A number of other hedge funds and other institutional investors have also recently bought and sold shares of the company. Price T Rowe Associates Inc. MD boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 13.4% during the 1st quarter. Price T Rowe Associates Inc. MD now owns 7,593,996 shares of the company’s stock worth $1,770,313,000 after purchasing an additional 897,911 shares in the last quarter. Vanguard Group Inc. boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 2.1% during the 1st quarter. Vanguard Group Inc. now owns 5,970,224 shares of the company’s stock worth $2,648,332,000 after purchasing an additional 121,201 shares in the last quarter. State Street Corp boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 1.8% during the 1st quarter. State Street Corp now owns 1,386,773 shares of the company’s stock worth $323,280,000 after purchasing an additional 24,595 shares in the last quarter. 1832 Asset Management L.P. boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 3,283,771.0% during the 4th quarter. 1832 Asset Management L.P. now owns 1,018,000 shares of the company’s stock worth $200,383,000 after purchasing an additional 1,017,969 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Geode Capital Management LLC boosted its position in shares of MongoDB by 3.8% during the 1st quarter. Geode Capital Management LLC now owns 967,289 shares of the company’s stock worth $225,174,000 after purchasing an additional 35,541 shares in the last quarter. 88.89% of the stock is currently owned by hedge funds and other institutional investors.

Insider Buying and Selling

In other MongoDB news, Director Dwight A. Merriman sold 2,000 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Tuesday, October 10th. The stock was sold at an average price of $365.00, for a total value of $730,000.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the director now owns 1,195,159 shares in the company, valued at approximately $436,233,035. The transaction was disclosed in a document filed with the SEC, which can be accessed through this hyperlink. In other MongoDB news, CRO Cedric Pech sold 1,212 shares of the stock in a transaction on Friday, October 6th. The stock was sold at an average price of $350.00, for a total value of $424,200.00. Following the sale, the executive now directly owns 31,018 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $10,856,300. The sale was disclosed in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available through this link. Also, Director Dwight A. Merriman sold 2,000 shares of the stock in a transaction on Tuesday, October 10th. The stock was sold at an average price of $365.00, for a total value of $730,000.00. Following the completion of the sale, the director now directly owns 1,195,159 shares in the company, valued at $436,233,035. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. In the last quarter, insiders sold 187,984 shares of company stock valued at $63,945,297. 4.80% of the stock is currently owned by corporate insiders.

MongoDB Trading Down 3.3 %

NASDAQ MDB opened at $346.28 on Monday. MongoDB, Inc. has a 12 month low of $135.15 and a 12 month high of $439.00. The company has a 50-day moving average of $359.63 and a 200-day moving average of $340.24. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.29, a current ratio of 4.48 and a quick ratio of 4.48. The company has a market cap of $24.71 billion, a P/E ratio of -100.08 and a beta of 1.13.

MongoDB (NASDAQ:MDB – Get Free Report) last posted its quarterly earnings data on Thursday, August 31st. The company reported ($0.63) EPS for the quarter, beating analysts’ consensus estimates of ($0.70) by $0.07. MongoDB had a negative net margin of 16.21% and a negative return on equity of 29.69%. The company had revenue of $423.79 million during the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $389.93 million. As a group, equities analysts predict that MongoDB, Inc. will post -2.17 earnings per share for the current year.

Analysts Set New Price Targets

MDB has been the topic of several research analyst reports. KeyCorp boosted their target price on shares of MongoDB from $372.00 to $462.00 and gave the stock an “overweight” rating in a research report on Friday, July 21st. Capital One Financial began coverage on shares of MongoDB in a research report on Monday, June 26th. They issued an “equal weight” rating and a $396.00 price objective on the stock. Tigress Financial boosted their price objective on shares of MongoDB from $490.00 to $495.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research report on Friday, October 6th. Guggenheim boosted their price objective on shares of MongoDB from $220.00 to $250.00 and gave the stock a “sell” rating in a research report on Friday, September 1st. Finally, Piper Sandler boosted their price objective on shares of MongoDB from $400.00 to $425.00 and gave the stock an “overweight” rating in a research report on Friday, September 1st. One equities research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, three have given a hold rating and twenty-two have assigned a buy rating to the stock. According to data from MarketBeat.com, MongoDB presently has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average price target of $416.31.

Get Our Latest Report on MDB

MongoDB Profile

(Free Report)

MongoDB, Inc provides general purpose database platform worldwide. The company offers MongoDB Atlas, a hosted multi-cloud database-as-a-service solution; MongoDB Enterprise Advanced, a commercial database server for enterprise customers to run in the cloud, on-premise, or in a hybrid environment; and Community Server, a free-to-download version of its database, which includes the functionality that developers need to get started with MongoDB.

Read More

Want to see what other hedge funds are holding MDB? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for MongoDB, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDB – Free Report).

Receive News & Ratings for MongoDB Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for MongoDB and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ

AWS recently announced the general availability of pgactive on RDS for PostgreSQL. The replication extension for PostgreSQL supports asynchronous active-active replication for streaming data between database instances, enhancing resiliency and flexibility.

Based on the open-source BDR project, pgactive provides node synchronization, replication lag metrics, and different automatic conflict resolution strategies: last update wins, first update wins, or customizable rules.

Supporting up to 16 writer instances, asynchronous active-active replication allows applications designed for eventual consistency to write to two or more RDS instances, maintaining availability throughout different database operations and reducing write latency for workloads distributed in multiple regions. Jonathan Katz, principal product manager – technical at AWS, explains:

A fundamental component of active-active replication is logical replication. Logical replication uses a data format that allows external systems to interpret changes before applying them to a target database. This lets the target system perform additional actions, such as detecting and resolving write conflicts or converting the statement into something that is supported in the target database software.

By default, the extension logs all conflicts and uses the last-update-wins strategy, accepting the changes from the transaction with the latest timestamp. Aakash Muthuramalingam, database reliability engineer at Mydbops, comments:

AWS has just unveiled a game-changing feature for PostgreSQL users (…) This innovation introduces a groundbreaking approach to database replication, allowing you to achieve unparalleled levels of performance, resilience, and scalability.

In an asynchronous active-active replication deployment, the cluster doesn’t have a single source of truth as multiple databases can accept changes and replicate them to other nodes. Katz warns:

pgactive is not a drop-in solution for all applications. Applications that use pgactive for an active-active database cluster must make specific design decisions to ensure they can operate safely. Even if you are routing write traffic to a single pgactive instance, you must make sure your application is architected to support an active-active replication topology.

In the last year, RDS for PostgreSQL introduced support for other extensions, including pgvector, plrust, h3-pg, hypopg, tcn, and seg, with new updates for pg_tle to handle custom datatypes. While Amazon recently highlighted their team’s contributions to open-source databases, the community needs more convincing and some developers question if pgactive will be open-sourced.

The extension is available on database instances running PostgreSQL 15.4-R2 and higher in all AWS regions. To enable the feature, the rds.enable_pgactive parameter should be set to 1 in the DB parameter group. Creating the extension in the database automatically enables rds.logical_replication and track_commit_timestamp, and sets wal_level to logical.

Article originally posted on InfoQ. Visit InfoQ

After three years experimenting with Bazel, in 2020 Spotify decided to adopt it as their official build system for the Spotify iOS app. Thanks to this, they could reduce build times to a fourth, explains Spotify engineer Patrick Balestra.

For the Spotify iOS team was crucial to complete the transition without ever stopping development or impacting release frequency. Previous to adopting Bazel, Spotify was using a custom-made Ruby DSL based on YAML to allow developers to add new modules declaratively, including the specification of a build target, the source files required to build it, as well as resources and dependencies. This was instrumental, says Balestra, to ensure a seamless transition to Bazel, since the same DSL scripts could be reused to generate BUILD.bazel files instead of Xcode .pxbproj files.

Switching to Bazel, as mentioned, brought build+test times down from 80 minutes (seven-day 75th percentile) to as little as 20 minutes.

We moved our CI configurations to Bazel one by one, starting with the configurations that took the longest. One in particular, with more than 800 test targets containing close to 3 million lines of code, took more than 45 minutes when building with Xcode. After moving to Bazel, this time decreased to less than 10 minutes.

According to Balestra, the improvement was mostly the result of Bazel’s efficient remote cache as well as to its support for parallelizing builds across several machines.

The process was not so straightforward as just piping the builds into Bazel, though. Rather, it involved a careful process to identify performance issues and bottlenecks using the telemetry insights provided by BuildBuddy, a tool aimed at unlocking Bazel’s power through a graphical user interface and a command line interface. Using bazel-diff the team could also better identify which portions of the build graphs were affected by each change in order to require only a minimal set of tests to be run for each new build.

To improve the coexistence between Xcode builds, which were run locally by developers, and Bazel builds, used in the CI infrastructure, Spotify adopted rules-xcodeproj. This allowed them to generate Xcode projects directly from Bazel build files instead of using the legacy Ruby/YAML build system, with the benefit of reducing cases where builds would succeed locally but fail in CI, which generated maintenance and troubleshooting costs.

The last step to complete the migration to Bazel was to define a rollout strategy where Bazel builds were directly deployed to employee devices for two weeks before being pushed through to external alpha and beta testers and final to the general audience.

With all this in place,the transition was carried through successfully, says Balestra, as also proved by crash and performance metrics, which showed no signicant differences.

Posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news

On Friday, MongoDB (NASDAQ:MDB), established by the DoubleClick team, reported a year-on-year (YoY) revenue increase of 39.6% to $423.8 million, surpassing analyst expectations by 8.42%. According to InvestingPro data, the company’s market cap stands at $24.71B USD with a revenue of 1487.0M USD. The company’s optimistic revenue guidance for the next quarter and the addition of 94 enterprise customers could not prevent its stock price from falling 8.75% to $348.08. It’s important to note that MongoDB has been showing a high return over the last year, as indicated by InvestingPro Tips, which might be a factor to consider for potential investors.

Snowflake (NYSE:NYSE:SNOW), founded by three Oracle (NYSE:ORCL) engineers, also reported a YoY revenue increase of 35.5% to $674 million on Friday, beating analyst expectations by 1.77%. InvestingPro data shows that Snowflake has a market cap of $48.67B USD, and a revenue of 2443.66M USD. Despite the positive revenue results, concerns over its net revenue retention rate overshadowed the addition of 29 enterprise customers paying more than $1m annually, leading to a stock price decline of 4.64% to $148.64. It’s worth noting that Snowflake holds more cash than debt on its balance sheet, according to InvestingPro Tips, which could be a positive sign for the company’s financial health.

DigitalOcean (NYSE:DOCN), established by the Uretsky brothers, saw a YoY revenue increase of 26.8% to $169.8 million on Friday but narrowly missed analyst expectations by 0.06%. The company’s stock fell sharply by 53.3% to a current trading price of $21.84 following disappointing full-year and next quarter’s revenue guidance.

Couchbase (NASDAQ:BASE), born from a merger between Membase and CouchOne, reported a modest YoY revenue increase of 8.41% to $43.1 million on Friday, exceeding analyst expectations by 3.42%. Yet, its stock price dropped by 10.9% to $14.71.

Commvault Systems (NASDAQ:CVLT), originally part of Bell Labs, reported flat YoY revenues of $198.2 million on Friday, meeting analyst expectations. This resulted in a stock price fall of 15.1% to $66.2.

In summary, the second quarter of 2023 saw data storage companies reporting mixed results, with revenues generally beating analyst expectations but share prices suffering significant declines. For more insights and tips such as these, consider exploring InvestingPro’s additional tips available on their pro pricing page.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.

Article originally posted on mongodb google news. Visit mongodb google news