brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Svetoslav Neykov <svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: catalog item deprecated/disabled: forbidding deployment
Date Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:58:21 GMT
No strong feelings for flags vs enums;

As for the API I think that the REST-y way to do it would be:

POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/deprecated
POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/disabled
   with a body of true/false

vs

POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/availability
   with a body of available/deprecated/disabled.

The property can be seen as a resource, but it's value it not one so shouldn't get a URL.

Svet.


> On 20.08.2015 г., at 15:12, Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'd like to finish this soon, so would like to reach consensus:
> 
> I lean towards boolean for deprecated:
> 
> * because disabling/enabling shouldn't clear whether it is "deprecated"
> * because google images use a separate piece of metadata for each of
>   deprecated, obsolete and deleted (and hopefully they thought about
>   it a lot; they also have "reason").
> 
> ---
> We can refactor it later - it's (mostly) back-end stuff.
> 
> However, we'd need to be careful to transform the catalog item's persisted state (which
will store the booleans).
> 
> The REST API also implies a mental model of separate metadata properties. The api allows:
>    POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/deprecated/true
>    POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/deprecated/false
>    POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/disabled/true
>    POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/disabled/false
> 
> An alternative would be something like:
>    POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/availability/available
>    POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/availability/deprecated
>    POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/availability/disabled
> 
> Aled
> 
> 
> On 19/08/2015 14:55, Aled Sage wrote:
>> Thanks Alex, all,
>> 
>> I'd just finished implementing the basic "boolean disabled" functionality [1].
>> 
>> Yes, disabled is stronger than deprecated.
>> 
>> Enumeration: interesting suggestion. Not sure - hard to know what if any other states
we'd add, and whether there's any use-case for setting as both deprecated + disabled.
>> I am tempted to change to an enumeration, even though I don't want to have to do
more work on it right now!
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> "Replacement" field (as GCE have). Nice idea. Can be added separately/later, I think.
Normally it's because there is a newer version of the blueprint that should be used instead,
which is fairly self evident. But I'm sure it would be useful in other situations.
>> 
>> Aled
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-brooklyn/pull/850 (but needs rebased against
master for package renames)
>> 
>> 
>> On 19/08/2015 14:36, Alex Heneveld wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 to the idea of "disabled"
>>> 
>>> Presumably disabled is stronger than deprecated.  Do we want both as booleans
or an enum e.g. "availability" ?
>>> 
>>> Could be nice to have a "replacement" field (which can be set to refer to a catalog
item to use instead) and perhaps an availability_comment (free-form text on why something
is deprecated/disabled)...  just some thoughts.
>>> 
>>> --A
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 19/08/2015 14:20, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>> Hi Aled,
>>>> 
>>>> not different, simply I was wondering if a schema like the one used in GCE
>>>> 
>>>> {
>>>> "state": string,
>>>> "replacement": string,
>>>> "deprecated": string,
>>>> "obsolete": string,
>>>> "deleted": string
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> could have been of any help.
>>>> Seems like `disabled` is similar to `obsolete` so your proposal is in line
>>>> with GCE approach, I think.
>>>> 
>>>> My two cents,
>>>> Andrea
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 15:06 Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We are attaching metadata to the persisted catalog item. One can
>>>>> explicitly set "deprecated" on a catalog item, and the proposal is to
>>>>> add support for "disabled".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is the GCE metadata a different approach from this?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Aled
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 19/08/2015 13:02, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>> Aled,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> interesting problem!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't want to confuse things, but this reminds me of something
I've
>>>>> seen
>>>>>> before. Could metadata attached to the blueprint be an idea, like
they do
>>>>>> for images at GCE [1]?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>> https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/reference/latest/images/deprecate

>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 12:11 Alasdair Hodge <
>>>>>> alasdair.hodge@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Agree with your proposal, Aled: WARN on deployment of any
>>>>>>> deprecated/superseded catalog item, but permit it. Could also
emit a
>>>>>>> (different?) warning when rebinding to deprecated catalog items,
but
>>>>>>> that's less important IMO. I might even suggest that deprecated
items
>>>>>>> should still be available in the UI, but clearly discouraged
for
>>>>>>> deployment.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Agree with "disabled" in principle, but wonder how likely is
it that
>>>>>>> users will actually maintain that attribute on old catalog items.
>>>>>>> Probably the best (== least surprising) available option however.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your customer might appreciate a launch option or brooklyn.property
to
>>>>>>> force deprecation warnings to be treated as errors, much like
>>>>>>> configurable IDE settings for various compiler warnings. "--strict"
or
>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Alasdair Hodge
>>>>>>> Principal Engineer,
>>>>>>> Cloudsoft Corporation
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 18/08/2015 20:01, Aled Sage wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A customer has asked that Brooklyn give an error when attempting
to
>>>>>>>> deploy "deprecated" catalog items (i.e. refuse to deploy
them).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In my opinion, this is not quite the classic meaning of "deprecated"
>>>>>>>> [1,2]. I suggest we add another state for catalog items (e.g.
>>>>>>> "disabled").
>>>>>>>> Do people agree? Or think we should change the behaviour
of deprecated?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _*Existing behaviour*_
>>>>>>>> Items in the catalog can be marked as deprecated. This means
the item
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> still kept in the catalog, but its metadata says "deprecated".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In the Brooklyn web-console "add application" wizard, the
deprecated
>>>>>>>> item is hidden. However, if you specify that exact version
in YAML,
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> you can still use it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Note: it's important to not delete the catalog item if any
applications
>>>>>>>> are using it. On rebind (i.e. restarting Brooklyn), we want
to be able
>>>>>>>> to find the catalog item for class-loading purposes (e.g.
to find out
>>>>>>>> the right OSGi bundles).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _*Proposal*_
>>>>>>>> We leave "deprecated" to have (mostly) the existing behaviour.
We
>>>>>>>> augment this to log.warn whenever an app is deployed that
is
>>>>> deprecated.
>>>>>>>> (It would be nice to show in the web-console that a deprecated
app was
>>>>>>>> used, but I suggest we defer that).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We add "disabled". When a catalog item is disabled, it cannot
be used
>>>>>>>> for deploying new apps. Any such attempt would give an error.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _*In the future...*_
>>>>>>>> Longer term, we could consider changing the behaviour of
"deleting" a
>>>>>>>> catalog item. For example, the item would no longer be listable
or
>>>>>>>> usable. However, it would not be expunged from the catalog
until there
>>>>>>>> were no more active uses of that catalog item. This would
be detected
>>>>>>>> automatically (akin to garbage collection).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We could perhaps add an "expunge" for catalog items that
entirely
>>>>>>>> deleted it from the catalog, even if app instances existed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Aled
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation
>>>>>>>>       "indicate that it should be avoided"
>>>>>>>>       "a feature, design, or practice that is permitted but
no longer
>>>>>>>> recommended"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [2] http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Deprecated.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
>>>>>>>   Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee
only.
>>>>> If
>>>>>>> the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please
>>>>> return
>>>>>>> the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the
message
>>>>>>> from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure.
>>>>> Cloudsoft
>>>>>>> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes
made to
>>>>> this
>>>>>>> message after it was sent.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission
of
>>>>>>> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
that the
>>>>>>> onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
>>>>>>> will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility
is
>>>>>>> accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and
the
>>>>> recipient
>>>>>>> should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers
>>>>> appropriate.
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 


-- 
Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230. 
 Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
 
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If 
the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return 
the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message 
from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft 
Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this 
message after it was sent.

Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of 
viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the 
onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments 
will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is 
accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient 
should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.

Mime
View raw message