I'm hearing you out, but how is this going to affect the part of this that is client behavior rather than database behavior? If there is some kind of sdk that actually captures the interface here (that is, that the client needs to be compatible with both versions of the schema at once for a while) and pushes that back to the client, that could be interesting, like a way to define that column "name" and columns "first name", "last name" are conceptually part of the same thing and that the client code paths must provide handling for both at once.
It should be this way. Clients should have some protocol to communicate the schema they expect to the database probably with some versioning scheme. The database should be able to serve multiple mutually compatible views over the schema (stay robust to column renames for example). The database should manage and prevent the destruction of in use views of that schema. After an old view has been made incompatible, old clients needing that view should be locked out.
On the Rails side, Gitlab has an extensive set of helpers for this that a lot of Rails projects have adopted—I would love to see them pulled out into a Gem or adopted into Rails core proper: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/blob/master/lib/gi...
Security concerns aside, this might be good for quick API or UI design exploration. Almost like an OpenAPI spec or Figma doc that gets produced at the end of this.
We've truly arrived at a strange time in history where a 1% drop is a considered a "dip".
> My prediction is we'll be at all time highs again a month from now.
If a global pandemic and a global trade war can't stop the market, seems like nothing will. The market will be bid up until whoever is in charge decides times up.
"If a global pandemic and a global trade war can't stop the market, seems like nothing will."
What will stop the market is the sudden realization (among retirees and near-retirees) that all of this AI bubble talk is relevant to their interests because their equity index exposure is actually 1/3 mag7 exposure.
They will, correctly, decide it is time to reduce equity exposure (possibly to zero, depending on age and situation).
This is, potentially, a recipe for a very abrupt and disorderly rush for the exit.
What’s missing right now are our guides showing how well ArchGW integrates with existing frameworks and tools. But the core idea is simple: it offloads low-level responsibilities—like routing, safety, and observability—that frameworks like LangChain currently try to handle inside the app. That means less bloat and more clarity in your agent logic.
And importantly, some things just can’t be done well in a framework. For example, enforcing global rate limits across LLMs isn’t realistic when each agent instance holds its own local state. That kind of cross-cutting concern needs to live in infrastructure—not in application code.
ArchGW complements langchain rather than replacing it - langchain handles agent orchestration/reasoning while ArchGW provides the infrastructure layer for prompt processing, guardrails and routing across your entire system.
Like you essentially defined the steps in a temporal like workflow and then it does all the work of expanding, verifying and contracting.
reply