标签：#ring

RestTemplate is a synchronous Spring Framework client used to consume RESTful web services by simplifying HTTP communication. Synchronous Communication: It blocks the execution thread until a response is received.HTTP Methods: It provides built-in methods for standard operations like GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE.Automatic Mapping: It can automatically convert JSON or XML responses into Java domain objects using message converters.Status: While widely used, it is in maintenance mode. For new projects, Spring recommends using the modern RestClient or the reactive. Its an automate work. getForObject() Performs a GET request and returns the response body directly as an object. getForEntity() Performs a GET request and returns a ResponseEntity (includes status and headers). postForObject() Sends data via POST and returns the mapped response body. exchange() A general-purpose method for all HTTP verbs, offering full control over headers and request entities. getForObject- Controller Snippet Response is received in Object format. @RestController @RequestMapping("/api") public class ApiController { @Autowired private ApiService apiService; @GetMapping("/getUsers") public String users() { return apiService.getUsers(); } Service snippet: @Service public class ApiService { @Autowired private RestTemplate restTemplate; @Autowired UserApiRepo userApiRepo; public String getUsers() { String url = "https://jsonplaceholder.typicode.com/users"; String response = restTemplate.getForObject(url, String.class); return response; } Response: "id": 1, "name": "Leanne Graham", "username": "Bret", "email": "Sincere@april.biz", "address": { "street": "Kulas Light", "suite": "Apt. 556", "city": "Gwenborough", "zipcode": "92998-3874", "geo": { "lat": "-37.3159", "lng": "81.1496" } }, "phone": "1-770-736-8031 x56442", "website": "hildegard.org", "company": { "name": "Romaguera-Crona", "catchPhrase": "Multi-layered client-server neural-net", "bs": "harness real-time e-markets" } getForEntity() Respo

Mallika Rao discusses the hidden risk of evaluation debt in production AI systems, drawing on her experience at Twitter, Walmart, and Netflix. She explains why traditional metrics fail modern architectures, breaks down a five-layer evaluation stack spanning infrastructure and UX, and shares a diagnostic maturity model to help engineering leaders eliminate silent semantic failures. By Mallika Rao

When I first connected to a precious metals WebSocket API, I expected to get a clean stream of prices. What I actually got was a firehose of mixed ticks—gold, silver, platinum—all arriving through the same callback. If you’ve ever tried to build a trading bot or a custom chart, you know this is a recipe for disaster. In this post, I’ll share how I solved the problem with a few lines of Python and a clear mapping strategy. The scenario: You have one WebSocket URL that pushes quotes for multiple metals. You need to separate them so you can update different UI components, run independent strategies, or store them in distinct database tables. The data pain point: every message uses the same JSON structure, and the only differentiator is a field like symbol . If you don’t act on it immediately, everything gets mixed up. Identify Assets via the Symbol Field Start by checking the API docs for the field that carries the instrument code. Usually it’s symbol , but instrumentId or type are also used. Here’s a typical reference table: Field Description Example symbol Asset code XAUUSD, XAGUSD instrumentId Internal platform ID 1001, 1002 type Asset class gold, silver I turn this into a dictionary mapping each symbol to a human-readable category: asset_map = { " XAUUSD " : " gold " , " XAGUSD " : " silver " , " XPTUSD " : " platinum " } Buffer Messages by Type Because these streams are high-frequency, I avoid processing every tick individually. Instead, the WebSocket callback just updates an in-memory store that is already grouped by asset type: # Keep the hot path extremely light def on_message ( msg ): symbol = msg [ ' symbol ' ] price = msg [ ' price ' ] asset_type = asset_map . get ( symbol , " unknown " ) cache [ asset_type ][ symbol ] = price Then, a background timer fetches the latest prices from cache["gold"] and cache["silver"] separately and does the actual work—like computing indicators or rendering charts. The key benefit is complete isolation: your gold logic never t

GitHub reports cutting token costs in agentic CI workflows by up to 62% by pruning unused MCP tools, swapping some MCP calls for gh CLI, and running daily “auditor” and “optimizer” agents. A token-usage.jsonl artefact and an Effective Tokens metric help track spend across models and spot regressions. By Mark Silvester

Agentic AI coding tools are transforming how we build software. But they share a fundamental constraint: context windows are finite, and as chat sessions grow, AI performance degrades, a phenomenon Anthropic calls context rot . The model loses its grip on early instructions, leading to a frustrating "fix-it loop" where the agent fixes one thing but breaks another. Most of us prompt an agent, let it write code, review it, and repeat. This works beautifully for prototypes. But when you need to build a stable, full-featured product with hundreds of mission-critical acceptance criteria (AC), "vibe-coding" breaks down. The reality is that you get better behavior from agents the same way you get it from humans, by explicitly capturing what good and bad look like, and checking against it . Coming from a systems engineering background in regulated industries, I knew we needed to stop treating agents like conversational chat buddies and start treating them like engineering assets. That's why I built DevCortex : a purpose-built structured intelligence layer that brings systems engineering discipline to agentic workflows. What is DevCortex? DevCortex is an agentic development platform built on one core idea: AI agents work best when they have structured, queryable access to a database of requirements they can interrogate on demand, not a wall of text in a prompt. It sits between the human specification and AI execution using three components: 1. An Agentic-V Model Database: A structured hierarchy mapping your high-level vision (ConOps) to system specs (Specs), individual requirements (Reqs), linked defects (Issues), and an auto-generated Traceability Matrix. 2. An MCP Server: Delivers just-in-time, high-signal context to tools like Claude Code or Open Code. Instead of dumping requirements upfront, the agent queries exactly what it needs, when it needs it. 3. Human Control Planes (Web UI & CLI): A multi-user Web UI with real-time WebSocket feeds to watch your agent work, plus a

Most software projects focus on producing outputs. Most AI projects focus on producing predictions. But real organizations don't operate on outputs or predictions alone. They operate on decisions. A decision has consequences. A decision creates risk. A decision consumes resources. A decision changes the future state of a system. Over the last few months, I've been studying and building systems around a simple question: How can we make decisions more explainable, auditable, and repeatable? This led me toward concepts such as: event-driven architectures decision logging risk evaluation pipelines audit trails feedback loops operational intelligence systems Instead of asking: "Can we predict what will happen?" I'm becoming more interested in asking: "Can we explain why a decision was made?" and "Can we reproduce that decision six months later?" Current areas I'm exploring: Financial decision systems Risk infrastructure Event-driven architectures Blockchain compliance workflows Operational intelligence platforms One of the projects I'm currently building is an Event-Driven Decision Logging System (EDDL), designed to explore how organizations can record, audit, and replay critical decisions over time. Still learning. Still building. Still refining my understanding of how complex systems operate under uncertainty. Looking forward to sharing the journey here. systemsdesign #architecture #backend #fintech #softwareengineering #eventdriven #riskmanagement

Hey Dev.to the community, I'm Ashwin Gururaj — a Data Scientist & AI Engineer based in Melbourne, Australia, currently open to full-time, contract, and internship opportunities. I specialise in building production-grade AI systems — not just notebooks and demos, but end-to-end pipelines that actually run in production. What I work with: Python · LangChain · LangGraph · FastAPI · RAG pipelines · pgvector · Multi-agent systems · LLMs · Groq · HuggingFace · Pydantic · Docker · Celery · Redis · PostgreSQL · Data Science · SQL · Pandas · Scikit-learn What I've built recently: Sift — an open-source multi-agent fact-checking pipeline. Takes any text, extracts every factual claim, retrieves grounded evidence via HyDE RAG + live web search, and returns auditable verdicts with cited sources. Built with LangGraph, pgvector, FastAPI, and Docker. → GitHub Open to: Full-time Data Scientist / AI Engineer / ML Engineer roles Remote or Melbourne-based Companies building serious AI products If you're hiring or know someone who is — I'd genuinely appreciate a connection. GitHub: https://github.com/ashg2099 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashwin-gururaj-93943816a/ Thanks!

In 1994, Peter Deutsch published the Fallacies of Distributed Computing — eight assumptions that every developer building distributed systems makes, discovers are wrong, and pays for in production. The network is reliable. Latency is zero. Bandwidth is infinite. Each assumption sounds true. Each leads to system failures that could have been avoided. Thirty years later, we're making the same category of mistakes with generative AI. The trough of disillusionment for AI-assisted development has begun. Byron Cook, VP and Distinguished Scientist at Amazon, founder of AWS's Automated Reasoning Group (300+ scientists, 15+ teams), says it plainly: "Generative AI is sliding into the trough of disillusionment." The headlines are shifting. The "summer of vibe coding" is over. The disillusionment isn't caused by AI being useless. AI-assisted coding delivers real productivity gains. The disillusionment is caused by false assumptions about WHERE the gains come from and WHAT changes when generation gets fast. Teams expected 10x engineering. They got 10x code generation and 1x everything else. The gap between expectation and reality is the trough. This series names the eight assumptions, explains why each one fails, and presents the resolution — not from theory, but from domains that hit the same wall and climbed out. The Eight Fallacies 1. Faster code generation means faster engineering. You made one sub-system 10x faster. Seven others didn't change. The system doesn't get faster — it breaks at the interfaces. The CPU-memory wall tells you exactly what happens and what fixes it. 2. If the output looks correct, it is correct. AI-generated code is optimized for plausibility, not correctness. It compiles, passes tests, and reads well — while violating properties nobody tested. Plausible is not correct. The gap is where production failures live. 3. You can verify AI output with another AI. Guardrails, LLM-as-judge, AI code review — the verifier has the same failure modes as the thing

Platform team sprint planning in 2026 begins with budget allocation, not architecture review. The first question is no longer "what do we need to build?" — it's "what can we afford to run?" This is not FinOps adoption. This is authority displacement. The platform team became a finance team because the control plane for infrastructure decisions migrated from architecture governance to budget governance. Cost constraints don't inform architectural decisions anymore — they dictate them. And when financial systems gain veto authority over technical systems, resilience becomes the variable that adjusts. Platform team cost governance is now the primary control surface. Architecture is secondary. How We Got Here The timeline is sharper than most organizations admit. 2018–2022 was the cloud adoption phase. Platform teams built for scale. Multi-region resilience was standard. Observability was deep. Auto-scaling was elastic. Architectural requirements shaped cost models. The budget followed the design. 2023–2024 brought FinOps as a cost visibility layer. Teams could finally see where money was going. Dashboards got built. Anomaly detection got configured. Attribution models got refined. But visibility was still separate from authority. The FinOps team reported. The platform team decided. 2025–2026 is when cost governance moved from reporting to gating. The turning point: platform teams stopped asking "can we build this?" and started asking "can we afford this?" Engineering roadmaps became cost roadmaps. Feature requests now come with budget allocation approvals. Architecture reviews now include CFO sign-off gates. This shift introduced Budget-Normalized Architecture — systems designed around predictable monthly spend targets instead of operational resilience targets. The architecture no longer optimizes for failure domains, latency requirements, or recovery objectives. It optimizes for staying under the cost ceiling. Cost governance expanded because engineering governance fa

The ring is 40% smaller than its predecessor, and comes with more accurate sensing, enhanced battery life, and more.

Over the past decade, the core evolution of data engineering has been the deconstruction and reconstruction of traditional data warehouse architectures through the Modern Data Stack. We separated data ingestion from databases, forming the Data Ingestion layer, using tools like FiveTran, Airbyte, and Apache SeaTunnel to solve ELT / CDC / Reverse ETL problems; We separated compute from storage, forming cloud data warehouse and lakehouse systems such as Snowflake, Databricks, Iceberg, and Hive; We separated orchestration from scripts, leading to orchestration systems like Apache Airflow and Apache DolphinScheduler; SQL development, data modeling, lineage, data quality, BI, and AI analytics were further split into independent tools. This architecture was undoubtedly progress. It moved data engineering away from the primitive era of “a bunch of scripts + Crontab” toward cloud-native infrastructure, elastic computing, engineering governance, and open ecosystems. The greatest contribution of the Modern Data Stack was “decoupling,” and its biggest side effect was also “decoupling.” Tools became more powerful, but data engineers were forced to switch between more systems than ever before: datasources in one place, synchronization configs in another, DAGs somewhere else, logs elsewhere, SQL stored in Git, and Snowflake / Iceberg / cloud warehouse execution results living in yet another environment. As a result, many data engineers spend less time on data modeling, business understanding, metric definitions, architecture design, and cost optimization — and far more time configuring datasources, setting field mappings, dragging DAG nodes, modifying SQL, checking logs, and rerunning tasks. This is the hidden pain created by the Modern Data Stack: data engineers became trapped inside tools. The emergence of engineering-focused AI systems like Codex and Claude Code is now changing the entire software engineering workflow. But how can data engineers truly achieve Vibe Coding? That

The conversation about cognitive debt in AI-assisted development has been framed as a tradeoff: you can go fast, or you can understand your system, but not both. The proposed mitigations — pair programming, code reviews, requiring a human to understand each change — are braking mechanisms. They trade speed for comprehension. TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) says braking is a compromise, not a resolution. A resolved contradiction eliminates the conflict. You don't choose between speed and understanding. You restructure the system so they don't conflict. There are six root causes of cognitive debt in AI-augmented development. Each one is a contradiction. Each one has a TRIZ resolution that doesn't involve slowing down. Root Cause 1: The Velocity-Comprehension Gap AI generates complex logic in seconds that would take a human hours to write. The human never spends the time typing the code during creation. The theory of the program is never fully formed. The Contradiction Technical contradiction: Improving development speed (AI generates code faster) worsens depth of understanding (human doesn't internalize the logic). Physical contradiction: The development process must be simultaneously FAST (to capture AI's productivity gains) and SLOW (to allow human assimilation of the system's behavior). Resolution: Separation in Space (Principle 2 — Extraction + Principle 1 — Segmentation) The contradiction assumes that the thing being understood IS the code. Extract the understanding target from the code and put it somewhere else — a smaller, slower-moving, human-readable artifact that captures what the code must satisfy, not how it works. Segment the system's theory into independent, composable units. Each unit is one property: "this service must never accept unauthenticated requests," "this data pipeline must preserve ordering," "this retry loop must terminate within 30 seconds." Each property is 1-3 sentences in natural language or 3-10 lines in a predicate language.

I understand why so many people are questioning software engineering right now. Every week there’s another headline saying AI will replace developers. Junior engineers are worried there won’t be jobs. Senior engineers are wondering how long their experience will stay valuable. And honestly, if you spend enough time on tech Twitter or LinkedIn, it can start feeling like the industry is collapsing in real time. But after using AI heavily in my day-to-day work as a software engineer, I’ve started seeing things differently. AI didn’t make me feel less useful. It made me feel more capable. Before AI became part of my workflow, a lot of engineering time disappeared into things that were mentally draining but necessary: repetitive refactoring debugging small issues writing boilerplate digging through documentation trying to remember syntax cleaning up legacy code writing SQL queries optimizing simple functions translating vague tickets into technical tasks None of these tasks were impossible. They were just time-consuming. Now, a lot of that friction is reduced dramatically. One of the biggest changes I noticed was backlog cleanup. Tasks that used to sit untouched because nobody wanted to deal with them suddenly became manageable. Not because AI magically solved everything. But because it helped reduce the “mental startup cost” of difficult tasks. Sometimes all you need is: a starting point a refactored example help understanding unfamiliar code a faster debugging path quick documentation summaries That momentum matters more than people realize. A task that feels overwhelming at 9AM suddenly becomes achievable when AI helps break it down. I also noticed we started delivering faster as a team. Not in a “replace developers with AI” kind of way. More in a: less context switching faster research quicker prototyping fewer hours stuck on repetitive problems better ticket breakdowns improved communication kind of way. The interesting part is that AI didn’t just help with coding.

Something broke in the AI pricing market between January and May 2026. A year ago, "frontier model" meant "expensive model." Claude Opus was $15/$75 per million tokens. GPT-4 was $5/$15. If you wanted the best coding performance, you paid the best price. The correlation between quality and cost was loose, but it existed. That correlation is gone. The Numbers That Changed Everything Here's SWE-bench Verified — the benchmark that tests AI models against real GitHub issues from projects like Django, Flask, and scikit-learn — plotted against output price per million tokens: Model SWE-bench Output $/1M Score/Dollar ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Claude Opus 4.7 87.6% $25.00 3.5 Claude Opus 4.6 80.8% $25.00 3.2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 80.6% $15.00 5.4 GPT-5.2 80.0% $10.00 8.0 DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 80.6% $3.48 23.2 Kimi K2.6 80.2% $4.00 20.1 Qwen3.6 Plus 78.8% $3.00 26.3 MiniMax M2.5 80.2% $1.20 66.8 DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) 79.0% $0.28 282.1 Read that last line again. DeepSeek V4 Flash scores 79% on SWE-bench at $0.28 per million output tokens. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 87.6% at $25.00. The performance gap is 8.6 percentage points. The price gap is 89x . For a team running 100 million tokens per month, that's the difference between $28/month and $2,500/month. For a 9-point improvement in code completion accuracy. It's Not Just One Outlier This isn't a DeepSeek anomaly. Look at the cluster of models scoring 78-80% on SWE-bench: DeepSeek V4 Pro : $3.48/1M output — open source, 1M context Kimi K2.6 : $4.00/1M output — open source, 256K context MiniMax M2.5 : $1.20/1M output — open source, 200K context Qwen3.6 Plus : $3.00/1M output — open source, 1M context MiMo-V2-Pro : $3.00/1M output — open source, 1M context Five models from five different Chinese labs, all scoring within 2 points of GPT-5.2 ($10.00/1M) and Gemini 3.1 Pro ($15.00/1M), all at 1/3 to 1/10 the price. And they're all open source. What Happened Three things converged: 1. Mixture-of-Exper

When LinkedIn engineers encountered short-lived, recurring outages where the database powering their user feed became unavailable and then recover without leaving helpful traces, they had to devise a novel approach to uncover the root cause using off-CPU profiling with eBPF. By Sergio De Simone

Aaron Erickson discusses the evolution of AI workflows, shifting from "vibe checking" to building reliable, multi-agent frameworks. He explains how to combine deterministic software guardrails with agentic discovery, optimize agent hierarchies, leverage time-series foundation models, and implement rigorous evaluation pyramids to ensure architecture scales effectively in production. By Aaron Erickson

Deep Research Agentic Systems are AI Agents designed to conduct multi-step research for complex tasks using dynamic reasoning, multi-hop information retrieval, and generate structured analytical reports. Sarang Kulkarni from Thoughtworks spoke at Arc of AI Conference 2026 on how to deploy multi-agent research systems for deep reasoning, and the lessons learned from developing Deep Research Agents. By Srini Penchikala

See how OpenAI, Thrive, and Crete built a self-improving tax agent with Codex, automating filings, improving accuracy, and accelerating workflows.

This article explores Kafka's transition toward a cloud-native architecture, examining how tiered storage, FinOps telemetry, elastic consumer scaling, virtual clusters, and Share Groups reshape the operational and economic model of event streaming platforms. It also analyzes emerging diskless-storage proposals and their architectural trade-offs. By Viquar Khan