标签：#t

Part 3 of the ERTH Architecture Series: Preventing port-scanning attacks and local socket hijacking in multi-process desktop apps. In the second part of this series , we built a self-healing Watchdog daemon in Bun to monitor and resurrect our Python sidecar backend (Robyn). Now, our desktop app is extremely stable. But it is also extremely insecure. You might think: "This is a desktop app running entirely on 127.0.0.1 (localhost). People from the internet can't access it, so why do I need security?" This is a classic cognitive blind spot in desktop app development. In reality, your local loopback interface is shared globally by the operating system. Any script running in the user’s web browser (e.g., a malicious website they happen to visit) can aggressively scan local ports (from 10000 to 65535). Once it hits your Robyn sidecar's dynamic port, it can send unauthenticated POST requests to delete databases, read private files, or trigger system actions. To prevent this, we must build a Zero-Trust Shield using Opaque Tokens to lock down all communication between the frontend WebView and the Python sidecar. The Zero-Trust Security Model To block unauthorized local traffic, the frontend and backend must share a cryptographically secure, short-lived token. Any request lacking this token will be instantly rejected by Robyn with a 403 Forbidden response. Here is how the defense line functions: Let's implement this architecture step-by-step. Step 1: Generating the Ephemeral Token in Bun Rather than saving credentials to a local config file (which could be read by malware on the system), we generate a random UUIDv4 in Bun’s process memory at startup. This token exists only during the application's runtime. // src-app/frontend/src/bun/index.ts // Generate a cryptographically secure, one-time Opaque Token in memory const agentSecretToken = crypto . randomUUID (); Next, we inject this token into the child process's environment variables when we spawn the Python sidecar: // Spaw

I place developers with US tech companies for a living. Before that sentence makes you close the tab: what follows is the thing I tell developers for free, one conversation at a time, until I got tired of saying it one person at a time. Last month a developer in Prague asked me if 55 dollars an hour was a reasonable rate. Nine years in. Kotlin, AWS. He had built and run a payment system for one of the largest Czech fintechs. Three million transactions a month. Zero P0 incidents in two years. A profile most US startups would fight over. I told him what the US market actually pays for that exact stack at that exact level. He went quiet for about thirty seconds. Then he said: "I have been contracting for three years. I just did the math." He had left roughly 180,000 dollars on the table. Not because he was not good enough. Because no one had ever told him the number. This is the most expensive blind spot in our industry, and almost nobody outside the US escapes it. So let me walk through why it happens, because once you see it you cannot unsee it. You are pricing against the only benchmark you have ever seen When you set your rate, you do not pull it from nowhere. You anchor it to something. And the only thing you have ever had to anchor to is your local market. So a senior engineer in Warsaw prices against Warsaw. One in Bucharest against Bucharest. You take the local senior salary, maybe add a premium because the client is foreign, and you land on a number that feels brave. Forty-five an hour feels brave when the engineer at the next desk makes the local equivalent of twenty. Here is the disruptive part. The US client is not paying for your location. They are not even thinking about your location, except as a logistics detail. They are paying for the work, and what that work is worth to their business. A payment system that does not go down is worth the same to a US fintech whether the person who built it sits in San Francisco or Brno. The value did not get cheaper w

Check this out: i Cut Our Image Captioning Costs 60% — Here's the Backend Story Look, I'll be honest. Six months ago I didn't think twice about image captioning. We were a small team, traffic was low, and we just threw everything at GPT-4o because it was the path of least resistance. Then our infra bill came in, my manager did that thing where he just stares at the dashboard, and suddenly I was a "cost optimization" guy. fwiw, that was not in my job description. This is the story of how I went from "we just use GPT-4o for everything" to a multi-model setup that cut our spend by more than half, with quality that — imho — is actually better than what we had before. No, this is not a sponsored post. Yes, I am going to mention Global API at the end because they made my life easier. More on that in a bit. Why Image Captioning Was Even on My Radar Our product has a lot of user-uploaded images. Think: product photos, profile pictures, the usual suspects. For each one we need a short, accessible caption that we use for SEO, alt text, and a downstream tagging pipeline. The downstream pipeline, btw, is the part that actually makes us money. Garbage captions in, garbage tags out. We were calling gpt-4o for everything. Every image. No caching. No batching. No thought. Each call cost us $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. You don't have to be a math PhD to know that scales badly. I was not a math PhD. I am still not a math PhD. But I can do division. When I started pulling the numbers, the situation was grim. We were processing roughly 8 million images a month, and each one was generating more tokens than it needed to. I found one image in the logs that had produced a 4,000-token caption. The image was a screenshot of an error message. The caption was longer than the error. The Wake-Up Call: Actually Reading the Catalog One Saturday morning, coffee in hand, I decided to actually look at what was on offer. I'd been ignoring the multi-model world b

Last week I couldn't shake an idea: what if I had an AI that knew everything I know ? Not ChatGPT — something on my hardware, holding my knowledge, answering to no one's API bill. Yesterday I built it. Here's the honest breakdown. What it does NEXUS runs on a regular Windows laptop — aging i7, 16GB RAM, no GPU. It: Remembers everything. Drop any file in a folder; 60 seconds later it's searchable memory. Answers from MY knowledge. "Which of my projects were formally closed and why?" — it answers from my actual records. Watches the live web. Every 2 hours it pulls Hacker News and news feeds, learns what's trending, pings my Telegram. Reports to my phone. 7 AM daily briefing: what it learned, what's running, what needs me. The stack — all free, all open source Ollama runs the models (Llama 3.2, Mistral 7B). Open WebUI is my private ChatGPT. Qdrant stores memory. n8n automates. SearXNG searches privately. PostgreSQL, Redis, and MinIO handle data. Commercial equivalent: $300–500/month . My cost: electricity. The memory trick nobody explains simply Parse — extract text from any file Chunk — split into ~300-word pieces Embed — each chunk becomes 768 numbers representing its meaning Store — a database that searches by similarity Your question becomes 768 numbers too, and the database finds memories with similar meaning — not matching keywords. I asked "how do I get clients cheaper" and it found my notes on "reducing customer acquisition cost." Different words. Same meaning. That's the magic. What surprised me A 2GB model is genuinely useful. Llama 3.2 3B answers from my knowledge in seconds, on CPU. The automation matters more than the AI. The watched folder + Telegram bot turned a cool demo into a system I actually use. Windows is fine. Docker Desktop + WSL2 ran all nine services without drama. The bill, honestly Hardware: $0 (laptop I own) Software: $0 (open source) APIs: $0 (all local) Time: one focused day The only future cost is a cloud GPU server (~$65/mo) when I outg

Token economics is not only about token price. It is about designing the rules, incentives, and long-term logic of a Web3 ecosystem. When people start building a Web3 project, they usually focus on the visible parts first. They think about the smart contract, the frontend, the wallet connection, the token launch, the whitepaper, and maybe the community. All of those are important. But there is one part that can decide whether the project survives or fails: Token economics. A project can have clean smart contracts, a nice UI, and strong marketing, but if the token economy is weak, the project can slowly collapse. Users may come only for rewards, early investors may dump, inflation may destroy value, and the token may lose its reason to exist. That is why token economics should not be treated as just a “crypto finance” topic. For developers and Web3 builders, token economics is closer to system design . It defines how value moves inside the ecosystem, how users are rewarded, how supply is controlled, how governance works, and how the project can grow without depending only on hype. What Is Token Economics? Token economics, often called tokenomics , means the design of how a token works inside a project. It answers questions like: Why does this token exist? Who receives the token? How is the token used? How many tokens will exist? How are rewards distributed? When can team and investor tokens unlock? How does the project treasury work? What creates real demand for the token? In simple words, token economics is the rule system behind a token. A token is not only something people buy and sell. In a real Web3 product, a token can be used for payments, staking, governance, access, rewards, collateral, or network fees. If the token has no clear role, it becomes only a speculative asset. That is dangerous because speculation can bring attention, but it cannot support a project forever. Why Developers Should Care Some developers think token economics is only for founders, eco

If you're building a modern data stack that requires either high-throughput transaction processing or large-scale analytical workloads, you've likely come across both Vertica and VoltDB (now rebranded as Volt Active Data). While both are distributed relational database management systems (RDBMS), they are architected for completely opposite use cases — choosing the wrong one can lead to 10x higher costs, missed latency SLAs, and poor application performance. In this guide, we break down every key difference between OpenText Vertica and Volt Active Data, with practical examples, real-world use cases, and best practices to help you make the right choice for your team. Table of Contents What is OpenText Vertica? What is Volt Active Data (Formerly VoltDB)? Core Differences Between Vertica and VoltDB Real-World Use Cases: When to Pick Which Best Practices & Common Mistakes Conclusion & Key Takeaways References What is OpenText Vertica? OpenText Vertica (formerly Micro Focus Vertica) is a columnar relational DBMS built exclusively for analytical (OLAP) workloads, first launched in 2005. As of 2026, the latest stable version is 26.1, with native lakehouse and Apache Iceberg export support for modern data ecosystems. Core Vertica Architecture Vertica's design is optimized for fast queries across massive datasets: Columnar storage : Data is stored by column instead of row, enabling significantly higher compression ratios and faster aggregation queries that only access a small subset of columns Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) : Query execution and data are distributed across hundreds of nodes for parallel processing Dual deployment modes : Enterprise Mode : Shared-nothing architecture with data stored locally on nodes for maximum performance Eon Mode : Compute and storage separated, using shared object storage (S3, GCS, ADLS) to scale compute independently of storage for cloud workloads Projections : Physical, sorted copies of data optimized for common query patterns (ins

Meta starts dismantling its $2 billion Manus acquisition after Beijing ordered the deal reversed.

PostgreSQL Error 22P01: Floating Point Exception PostgreSQL error code 22P01 is raised when a floating-point operation produces an exceptional result that cannot be represented as a valid number. This typically occurs during division by zero on float types, operations involving NaN (Not a Number), or arithmetic that yields Infinity . It is most commonly encountered in analytics, financial calculations, and data pipelines processing external or sensor data. Top 3 Causes 1. Division by Zero on Float Types Unlike integer division (which raises 22012 ), dividing a float by zero triggers a floating-point exception. This is especially common in ratio and rate calculations where the denominator can become zero at runtime. -- Problematic query SELECT total_sales :: float / total_orders :: float AS avg_order_value FROM daily_stats ; -- Safe fix using NULLIF SELECT date , total_sales :: float / NULLIF ( total_orders , 0 ):: float AS avg_order_value FROM daily_stats ; 2. NaN Values in Arithmetic Operations Data ingested from external systems, CSVs, or APIs may silently introduce NaN values into float columns. Once NaN participates in arithmetic, results become unpredictable and can trigger exceptions downstream. -- Detect NaN values (NaN is the only value not equal to itself) SELECT id , value FROM sensor_readings WHERE value != value ; -- Replace NaN with NULL safely UPDATE sensor_readings SET value = NULL WHERE value != value ; -- Filter NaN in aggregations SELECT device_id , AVG ( value ) FILTER ( WHERE value = value ) AS clean_avg FROM sensor_readings GROUP BY device_id ; 3. Infinity Arithmetic Conflicts Storing 'Infinity'::float or '-Infinity'::float is valid in PostgreSQL, but performing certain operations on them produces mathematically undefined results (e.g., Infinity - Infinity = NaN ), which can cascade into a floating-point exception. -- Check for Infinity values SELECT id , measurement FROM raw_data WHERE measurement IN ( 'Infinity' :: float , '-Infinity' :: float

GitHub's Agentic Workflows preview has the kind of headline that makes people reach for the wrong conclusion. Natural language Markdown can turn into GitHub Actions workflows. That sounds like "the YAML is going away." I do not think that is the interesting story. The interesting story is that the agent is not escaping the workflow engine. It is being pulled into it. That matters because a lot of agent demos still pretend the future is a smart process floating above the boring machinery: the agent understands the request, edits the repo, runs some commands, and hands back a neat result. Nice demo. Very clean. Production engineering is not clean like that. Production engineering has permissions, logs, runner groups, approval rules, secrets, firewalls, budgets, weird old repositories, compliance questions, and someone who has to explain what happened when the helpful automation did something surprising. So the shape of Agentic Workflows is useful precisely because it is less magical than the demo version. GitHub is putting agents inside the same CI/CD world that already carries a lot of organizational trust. That is the right direction. markdown is not the control plane The cute part is that a developer can describe a workflow in Markdown and have GitHub turn that into standard Actions YAML. That is useful. YAML is not a personality test, and most teams have better things to do than memorize every Actions syntax edge case. But Markdown is only the input surface. The control plane is still Actions. That distinction matters. If the generated workflow is a normal Actions workflow, then all the existing machinery can still matter: repository permissions, runner selection, logs, environments, approvals, branch protection, organization policy, and whatever security controls the company already built around CI. This is where I get more optimistic about agentic tooling. The bad version of agents asks every organization to trust a new, parallel execution model because the mode

The hype cycle for AI adoption in businesses often follows a familiar, and often frustrating, trajectory. It begins with the undeniable allure of a powerful new tool—seeing ChatGPT effortlessly summarize documents or Copilot intelligently autocomplete code is undeniably impressive. The immediate reaction is almost universally: "We need to get AI." So, tools are procured, workshops are run, and initial enthusiasm soars. Yet, more often than not, six months down the line, that excitement has waned, and the needle on actual business transformation hasn't moved. The fundamental operational rhythm of the organization remains unchanged. As a Senior IT Consultant and Digital Solutions Architect with over a decade of experience, I've observed this pattern repeatedly across various client engagements. This isn't a failure of the technology itself, but rather a profound strategy failure . It’s the single most common and costly mistake I encounter in AI adoption today. The Critical Distinction: Tool Acquisition vs. Strategic Integration Think of buying an AI tool like purchasing a state-of-the-art machine for a workshop. Its inherent value is immense, but if it sits in a corner, unused or without a defined process around it, that value remains entirely theoretical. It's an expense, not an asset generating return. Real AI integration , on the other hand, is a disciplined, multi-faceted endeavor. It's about deeply understanding your existing business processes, meticulously identifying precisely where intelligent automation can create genuine, measurable leverage. It involves designing a holistic system that delivers this leverage, and critically, establishing robust mechanisms to measure the actual outcomes against predefined business objectives. This holistic approach is strategy. The tools—be it an LLM, a specific AI platform, or an automation suite—are merely components that strategy carefully selects and orchestrates to achieve a greater aim. Where AI Integration Truly Crea

Book: The Complete Guide to Go Programming Also by me: Thinking in Go (2-book series) — Complete Guide to Go Programming + Hexagonal Architecture in Go My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You come to Go from a language with classes. You see struct embedding for the first time, and it reads like inheritance. A field with no name, methods that "carry over" to the outer type, a base struct that your type extends. So you write code the way you always have, and most of it works. Then a method does something you did not ask for, a type satisfies an interface you never meant to implement, or two embedded types fight over a name and the compiler shrugs until the exact line that calls it. Embedding is not inheritance. It is composition with a syntax that promotes methods and fields up one level. Once you hold that distinction, the surprises stop being surprises. Here is where they come from. Embedding promotes, it does not subclass Write an embedded field by giving a type with no field name: type Engine struct { Horsepower int } func ( e Engine ) Start () string { return "vroom" } type Car struct { Engine // embedded Brand string } Car now has a Start method and a Horsepower field, both promoted from Engine . You can write car.Start() and car.Horsepower as if they were declared on Car . car := Car { Engine : Engine { Horsepower : 300 }, Brand : "Fiat" } fmt . Println ( car . Start ()) // vroom fmt . Println ( car . Horsepower ) // 300 This is where the inheritance illusion starts. car.Start() is sugar. The compiler rewrites it to car.Engine.Start() . The receiver of Start is still an Engine , never a Car . There is no base class, no super , no virtual dispatch. Engine does not know Car exists. That last point is the one that bites. A promoted method runs against the embedded value, not the outer struct. The method that ignores the outer struct Say you want a stringer on the embe

Introdução Assim como funções, construtores podem ter múltiplas assinaturas: O problema class Evento { constructor ( id : string , tipo : string , competencia : string ) { ... } // como aceitar também só id e tipo, sem competencia? } Solução — overload signatures class Evento { id : string ; tipo : string ; competencia : string ; // assinaturas constructor ( id : string , tipo : string ); constructor ( id : string , tipo : string , competencia : string ); // implementação constructor ( id : string , tipo : string , competencia : string = " nao-definida " ) { this . id = id ; this . tipo = tipo ; this . competencia = competencia ; } } new Evento ( " 1 " , " R-2010 " ); // ✅ primeira assinatura new Evento ( " 1 " , " R-2010 " , " 2024-01 " ); // ✅ segunda assinatura

Book: The Complete Guide to Go Programming Also by me: Thinking in Go (2-book series) — Complete Guide to Go Programming + Hexagonal Architecture in Go My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You wrote a function that walks a directory and reads every file. It opened cleanly in review. It passed tests on a fixture folder with three files. Then a customer pointed it at a folder with 20,000 files, and the logs filled with: open /data/batch/img-08431.png: too many open files The code never closed anything early. It deferred every close. And that is exactly the problem. defer runs at function return, not end of iteration defer schedules a call to run when the surrounding function returns. Not when the current block ends. Not when the loop iteration ends. When the function returns. Most of the time that distinction does not matter, because most deferred calls live in short functions that return quickly. Put a defer inside a for loop, though, and every iteration adds one more deferred call to a stack that does not unwind until the whole loop is done and the function exits. Here is the version that ships: func processFiles ( paths [] string ) error { for _ , p := range paths { f , err := os . Open ( p ) if err != nil { return err } defer f . Close () // runs at RETURN, not here if err := handle ( f ); err != nil { return err } } return nil } Read it the way the language reads it. On the first iteration, os.Open returns a file handle and you defer its close. On the second iteration, another handle, another deferred close. By the time the loop has touched 20,000 files, you are holding 20,000 open descriptors, and not one of them closes until processFiles returns. Your process has a file-descriptor limit. On Linux the soft default is often 1024. You blow through it somewhere around the 1024th file, and the error you get back says nothing about defer . It says too many open files , wh

Book: Decoupled PHP — Clean and Hexagonal Architecture for Applications That Outlive the Framework Also by me: Thinking in Go (2-book series) — Complete Guide to Go Programming + Hexagonal Architecture in Go My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You ship a list endpoint. GET /orders . It returns the customer's orders, newest first. Clean. Then product wants a status filter. Then a date range. Then "only orders over 100 euros". Then pagination. Then sort by total, descending. Six months later the controller signature reads like a tax form, and the repository method that backs it is findByCustomerAndStatusAndMinTotalBetweenDatesOrderedBy(...) with nine parameters, three of them nullable. So you "fix" it. You let the caller pass a Doctrine QueryBuilder into the repository. Or worse: the use case starts assembling WHERE clauses as strings because that was the fastest way to add the next filter on a Friday. Now your application layer knows about table aliases and SQL operators. The domain speaks SQL, and the whole point of having a repository interface is gone. There is a shape that holds: a query object the domain builds, and an adapter that translates it into SQL. The caller describes what it wants in domain terms. The adapter decides how to fetch it. The leak, concretely Here is the version that grows out of control. Every new filter is another nullable parameter. public function search ( ?string $customerId , ?string $status , ?DateTimeImmutable $from , ?DateTimeImmutable $to , ?int $minTotalCents , string $sortBy = 'placedAt' , string $direction = 'DESC' , int $page = 1 , int $perPage = 20 , ): array ; Nine parameters, half of them nullable, two of them ( sortBy , direction ) carrying raw column names that map straight to SQL. Add a filter and the signature grows again. Every caller has to remember positional order. And $sortBy is a column name leaking through the port: t

Book: Decoupled PHP — Clean and Hexagonal Architecture for Applications That Outlive the Framework Also by me: Thinking in Go (2-book series) — Complete Guide to Go Programming + Hexagonal Architecture in Go My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You open a use case that places an order. Near the top of the constructor, alongside the repositories and the payment gateway, sits a Psr\Log\LoggerInterface . The method body calls $this->logger->info(...) three times. It looks harmless. It is the most common way framework concerns leak back into a domain you spent weeks keeping clean. PSR-3 is a fine standard. Monolog is the default implementation in most PHP projects, and it earns that spot. The problem is not the library. The problem is where you point it. When LoggerInterface is a constructor argument in your application layer, your use case now depends on a package whose surface area you do not control, whose log levels you may not want, and whose context conventions are someone else's. The dependency arrow points the wrong way. What PSR-3 drags in Psr\Log\LoggerInterface is eight level methods plus a generic log() . The level taxonomy comes from RFC 5424 syslog: emergency , alert , critical , error , warning , notice , info , debug . That is a system-administration vocabulary. Your domain does not speak it. When a use case calls $this->logger->warning('payment retry') , you have to ask: is a retry a warning or a notice ? The answer is an infrastructure judgment call wearing a domain costume. The method signature also accepts an arbitrary array $context and a string|Stringable $message with {placeholder} interpolation. None of that is something your application code should be deciding. <?php declare ( strict_types = 1 ); namespace App\Application\Order ; use Psr\Log\LoggerInterface ; final readonly class PlaceOrder { public function __construct ( private OrderRepository $ord

Book: Decoupled PHP — Clean and Hexagonal Architecture for Applications That Outlive the Framework Also by me: Thinking in Go (2-book series) — Complete Guide to Go Programming + Hexagonal Architecture in Go My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You open a use case that places an order. It loads a customer, builds the order, charges a payment gateway, saves, publishes an event. Clean. Then a sprint ago someone added a retry loop around the charge call, because the gateway flaps under load. Now the use case has a for ($i = 0; $i < 3; $i++) , a usleep() , and a comment that says // gateway is flaky on Mondays . The business rule is buried under retry plumbing. A reader who wants to know what placing an order means has to skip past sleep timers and exception counters to find it. Worse, the next person who adds a second outbound call copies the loop. Soon every call to the network has its own hand-rolled retry, each with a slightly different backoff, none of them tested. The use case learned about transient failure. It should never have. Transient failure is not a business rule A use case answers one question: what does the application do when this thing happens? Place an order. Cancel a subscription. Issue a refund. Those are decisions the business cares about. "The payment gateway returned a 503 and we should try again in 200ms" is not a business decision. It is a property of the network between your process and theirs. The domain does not know the gateway is HTTP. It does not know there is a network at all. It asked a port to charge a customer, and the port either succeeds or raises a domain exception. Here is the port, stated in domain language: <?php declare ( strict_types = 1 ); namespace App\Application\Port ; use App\Domain\Customer\CustomerId ; use App\Domain\Shared\Money ; interface PaymentGateway { public function charge ( CustomerId $customerId , Money $amount , s

Batch 010 found a bug that looked like good news. The classification worker was finishing its work. Runs moved through the database. Product rows had candidate tariff codes. The regression suite was far enough along that a casual glance could have treated the classifier as alive. Then one test forced three uncomfortable cases through the loop: no candidate, weak confidence, and a near tie. All three came back looking too clean. The worker was persisting the run as classified , even when the evidence said the product needed review or had no supportable recommendation. That is the kind of bug I worry about in compliance software. Not the loud crash. The green row. A customs classifier can fail by throwing an exception. That failure is annoying, but honest. The operator sees it. The queue stops. The job gets retried. The audit trail can say, plainly, that classification did not happen. The worse failure is a result that looks complete while the evidence underneath is missing or contested. That was the real Batch 010 scar. The engine already carried the domain rule in its intent: classification is evidence, not a label. But the persistence path was still treating classification as if the only final state that mattered was success. The runtime could produce rejected candidates and confidence values. The database could store failure reasons. The tests could express review states. One narrow path still flattened doubt into completion. I was wrong about where the risk sat. I expected the hard part to be selecting the tariff code. The harder problem sat one layer later: making sure the code was not selected when the evidence did not deserve that much authority. Customs data makes that tension obvious. A product row is rarely a clean ontology entry. It is a SKU, a commercial name, a description written by someone under time pressure, a country of origin, a jurisdiction, maybe a material list, maybe an intended use. The difference between a good HS or HTS recommendation and a

Book: Decoupled PHP — Clean and Hexagonal Architecture for Applications That Outlive the Framework Also by me: Thinking in Go (2-book series) — Complete Guide to Go Programming + Hexagonal Architecture in Go My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub You have an Order . It owns line items and a shipping address. In the database that is three tables: orders , order_items , order_addresses . The aggregate is one thing in the domain and three rows-with-children in storage. Now look at what most codebases do with that. The service loads the order, loops the items, saves each one in its own statement. Halfway through, a unique-constraint violation throws. The order header is already committed. Two items are in. One address is missing. You have a row in orders that no part of the system considers valid, and no single place to point at when you ask how it got there. The aggregate is supposed to be a consistency boundary. Saving its parts in separate, independently-committing operations breaks that boundary on the way to disk. This post is about closing it: one repository, one transactional save across every table, and a read path that rebuilds the whole object from rows without leaking the ORM into the domain. The aggregate the domain sees The domain class has no idea it lives in three tables. It holds its children directly and guards their invariants. <?php declare ( strict_types = 1 ); namespace App\Domain\Order ; use App\Domain\Shared\Money ; final class Order { /** @var list<LineItem> */ private array $items ; private function __construct ( private readonly OrderId $id , private readonly CustomerId $customerId , array $items , private Address $shipTo , private OrderStatus $status , ) { if ( $items === []) { throw new InvalidOrder ( 'order needs an item' ); } $this -> items = array_values ( $items ); } public static function place ( OrderId $id , CustomerId $customerId , array $it

According to the Wall Street Journal, the export control directive that led to Anthropic cutting off access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 was triggered in part by cybersecurity research from Amazon and conversations between CEO Andy Jassy and the White House. According to the report, the paper from Amazon claims that, through a series […]

Book: Decoupled PHP — Clean and Hexagonal Architecture for Applications That Outlive the Framework Also by me: Thinking in Go (2-book series) — Complete Guide to Go Programming + Hexagonal Architecture in Go My project: Hermes IDE | GitHub — an IDE for developers who ship with Claude Code and other AI coding tools Me: xgabriel.com | GitHub Open a PHP REPL and type 0.1 + 0.2 . You get 0.30000000000000004 . Now imagine that drift sitting in a total column on an invoice. The bug report does not say "IEEE 754 rounding." It says "the customer was charged one cent too much and finance wants to know why." Money is not a number. It is an amount paired with a currency, and it follows rules a float does not know about. You cannot add 10 USD to 10 EUR. You cannot store 19.99 in a binary fraction and expect it back. You cannot round a third of a cent without deciding how to round it, and that decision belongs to your business, not to your storage engine. This post builds a small Money value object that gets the currency safety right, then shows when to stop hand-rolling and wrap brick/money behind a domain port instead. The point of the port is the same point as every port: the rounding rules live in your domain, and the library stays swappable. Why a float is the wrong type Three separate problems hide inside float $amount . The first is representation. A float is a binary fraction. Decimal amounts like 0.10 have no exact binary form, so they round on every store and load. Sum a few thousand line items and the error compounds into real cents. The second is the missing currency. A bare number cannot tell you whether 1000 means ten dollars or one thousand yen. Two amounts in different currencies are not comparable, but the type system lets you add them anyway. The third is the rounding rule. When you split 10.00 across three line items, you get 3.333... per item. Someone has to decide who absorbs the leftover cent. A float makes that decision silently and inconsistently. The fix