brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Heneveld <alex.henev...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL/DISCUSSION] yaml DSL for invoking effectors
Date Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:30:58 GMT
An `EntityInitializer` for this purpose is a nice alternative pattern --
better than the child entity I suggested at #155 -- until we have sequence
effector YAML.  Is there anything `$brooklyn:effector` gives us that an
initializer wouldn't do in a cleaner way?

Best
Alex


On 1 March 2017 at 11:54, Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to resurrect the discussion of whether the yaml DSL should
> support invoking effectors.
>
> See https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/155. (That was merged,
> but Alex will revert it while we discuss if we want it, and if so then how
> it would behave).
>
> If folk have additional use-cases and opinions to share, that would be
> very useful!
>
> ---
>
> Below is what Andrew wrote in his email "[PROPOSAL] Enabling Effective
> Effectors" on 30/05/2016, but it wasn't properly discussed then.
>
>    ## Calling Effectors
>
>    The YAML blueprint specification allows entities to be defined with
>    sensors
>    and to access the value of sensors for use in configuration. However,
>    although an entity can include effectors defined in the Java classes, or
>    using scripting languages (see above) and SSH commands, it is not
>    possible
>    to execute effectors and retrieve their results anywhere in a blueprint.
>
>    The code in [brooklyn-server#155](
>    https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/155) implements a new
>    function for the `DslComponent` class that can execute an effector on an
>    entity and evaluates to its return value. This new function is used as
>    follows:
>
>    ```YAML
>    $brooklyn:entity("other").effector("findInformation"):
>       args:
>         arg1: "value"
>         arg2: 3.14159d
>         arg3: $brooklyn:attributeWhenReady("host.address")
>    ```
>
>    Here we see the effector `findInformation` being evaluated with three
>    arguments, on the entity with id `other`. One of the arguments is an
>    `attributeWhenReady` call, thus causing the execution to be delayed
>    until
>    the sensor data is available.
>
> ---
> Alex's philosophical objection in https://github.com/apache/broo
> klyn-server/pull/155#issuecomment-283077136 is copied below for your
> convenience):
>
>    right, so the use case is one entity wanting to get information from
>    another. is there no way this can be accommodated using sensors? my
>    philosophical objection is that we're introducing first-class
>    support for a new class of dependency injection:
>
>     1. simplest - static: DEP.x is set to a constant
>     2. blocking - sensor: DEP.x can wait if a value isn't ready yet, ie
>        it is a promise, $brooklyn:entity(SRC).attributeWhenReady(...),
>        which once resolved is always taken as the value
>     3. triggering - effector: every lookup to DEP.x invokes a call
>        somewhere eg $brooklyn:entity(SRC).effector(...)
>
>    A widespread use of (3) scares me [Alex] and it's worth avoiding
>    this if at all possible. it also means lookups aren't idempotent
>    (which is why the SideEffecting marker is introduced here, but it
>    isn't going to work.
>
>    could your [use-case] be solved another way, if not with waiting on
>    a sensor, by the config pointing at the source entity rather than
>    the key value itself, and whenever it is accessed there is code
>    which invokes the effector to get the key on that source entity?
>
>
> ---
> I believe the original use-case that motivated this was setting up a
> docker host, with certificates dynamically generated by a CA Server
> (Certificate Authority).
>
> The blueprint has a CA Server entity and several Docker Host entities. For
> setting up each Docker Host, we want a new certifiacte that is signed by
> the CA. We want to put the certificate files onto the Docker Host (so that
> the Docker Engine is correctly configured for TLS).
>
> There is an effector on the CA entity, to send it a Certificate Signing
> Request (CSR), and thus to get back a new certificate.
>
> One solution in pure-yaml blueprints (simplified slightly for clarity in
> this discussion) would be to have a "certificate" config key on the Docker
> Host entity. This would be set to a value like:
>
>    brooklyn.config:
>       certificateData:
>    $brooklyn:entity("ca").effector("requestCertificate"):
>           args:
>             ip: $brooklyn:config("host.address")
>
> Part of the setup script would use this config key, and create a file
> using its value.
>
> When the config key was evaluated for the first time, it would execute the
> effector and thus get a new certificate. Subsequent lookups of the config
> key would use the same value (rather than invoking the effector multiple
> times).
>
> Note the significant difference compared to Alex's summary, where Alex
> suggested the effector would be invoked every time the config key value was
> retrieved.
>
> ===
> Below are some alternative ways to solve the above use-case. I don't want
> us to get too distracted in this discussion of "yaml DSL for invoking
> effectors". However, if we reach agreement that one of these alternative is
> better then we can ignore the use-case that I've described above.
>
> _*Resort to Java*_
> We could resort to writing some Java code (e.g. write an
> "EntityInitializer" that called the requestCertificate effector, and set
> the result as a sensor; this could be added to the Docker Host entity. The
> rest of the Docker Host blueprint would use attributeWhenReady on the
> "certificateData" sensor.
>
> There could be a generic EntityInitializer for invoking a given effector
> on a given entity, and setting a sensor with the result.
>
> _*Defining an Effector as a Sequence of Tasks*_
> Longer term, we could add YAML support for describing a sequence of tasks.
> The basic Docker Host entity would be extended so that its "start" effector
> first invoked a task, which would call the "requestCertificate" effector on
> the CA (and probably set the result as a sensor or config key).
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message