cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to Java 8
Date Fri, 01 May 2015 06:59:59 GMT
I agree, this wrapper is a good step forward. It's totally fine to continue
on that path because it is obviously better and makes it easy to switch to
autodetection anytime later by simply adding the annotation. Sorry if I got
a bit passionate about that, but as you mention I also get tired of adding
things in multiple places, and the annotations have worked well in the API
and provide a good model to emulate for consistency.

I can't share code, because these extensions to LibvirtComputingResource
that I've provided for other companies have not been open sourced. I can
speak more generically though about methods.

To answer question "a", reflection allows you to do something like:

Reflections reflections = new
Set<Class<? extends CommandWrapper>> wrappers =

So here in "new Reflections" we are automatically filtering for just the
wrappers that would apply to the KVM plugin.
Then to finish it off, you iterate through the wrappers and do:

ResourceWrapper annotation = wrapper.getAnnotation(ResourceWrapper.class);
citrixCommands.put(annotation.handles(), wrapper.newInstance());

Sorry, I guess that's four lines, plus the relevant for loop. And probably
a null check or something for the annotation. You also have to add the
annotation class itself, and add a line for the annotation in each wrapper,
but in the end when we add new Commands, we won't have to touch anything
but the new class that handles the command.

public @interface ResourceWrapper {

    Class<? extends Command> handles();


There's an example of something similar to this in (annotation is This
example has actually been adapted from that. Also to a lesser extent in the
API server, but it is spread across a bunch of classes.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Wilder Rodrigues <> wrote:

>  Hi Marcus,
>  Thanks for the email… I’m always in for improvements. But why can’t you
> share the code?
>  Few points below:
>  1. I added an subclassing example of LibvirtComputingResource because
> you mentioned it in a previous email:
>   On 23 Apr 2015, at 17:26, Marcus <> wrote:
>   I mentioned the reflection model because that's how I tend to handle
> the commands when subclassing LibvirtComputingResource.
>  2. Current situation with LibvirtComputingResource on Master is:
>  a. 67 IFs
> b. 67 private/protected methods that are used only there
> c. If a new Command is added it means we will have a new IF and a new
> private method
> e. Maintenance is hell, test is close to zero and code quality is below
> expectations
>  That being said, the main idea with the refactor is to change structure
> only, not behaviour. So what I’m doing is to simply move the code out the
> LibvirtCompRes and write tests for it, keeping the behaviour the same - to
> be done in a next phase.
> If you look at the changes you will see that some wrappers are already
> 100% covered. However, some others have 4% or 8% (not that much though). I
> would like to refactor that as well, but that could change behaviour
> (mentioned above) which I don’t want to touch now.
>  3. With the new situation:
>  a. No IFs
> b. All methods wrapped by other classes (command wrappers) - loosely
> coupled, easier to test and maintain
>  c. If a new Command is added we would have to add a command wrapper and
> 1 line in the request wrapper implementation ( I know, it hurts you a bit)
> - but please bear with me for the good news.
>  4. the warnings are due to that:
>     Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>, CommandWrapper>()
>      No big deal.
>  As I understood from  your first paragraph we would have to annotated
> the commands classes, right? I mean, all of them.
>  That’s something I wouldn’t do in this phase, to be honest. It might
> seem harmless to do, but I like to break things down a bit and have more
> isolation in my changes.
>  What’s next: I will finish the refactor with the request wrapper as it
> is. For me it is no problem do add the lines now and remove them in 1 week.
> Most of the work is concentrated in the tests, which I’m trying as hard as
> I can to get them in the best way possible. Once it’s done and pushed to
> master, I will analyse what we would need to apply the annotation.
>  But before I go to bring the kids to school, just one question:
>  a. The “handle” value, in the annotation, would have the wrapper class
> that would be used for that command, right?  Now let’s get 1 command as
> example: CheckHealthCommand. Its wrapper implementation differs per
> hypervisor (just like all the other wrapper commands do). I’m not taking
> the time to really think about it now, but how would we annotated the
> different wrappers per command?
>  Thanks again for your time.
>  Cheers,
> Wilder
>  On 30 Apr 2015, at 22:52, Marcus <> wrote:
> Ok. I wish I could share some code, because it isn't really as big of
> a deal as it sounds from your reasoning. It is literally just 3 lines
> on startup that fetch anything with the '@AgentExecutor' annotation
> and stores it in a hash whose key is the value from @AgentExecutor's
> 'handles' property. Then when a *Command comes it it is passed to the
> appropriate Executor class.
> Looking at CitrixRequestWrapper, the 3 lines I mention are almost
> identical in function to your init method, just that it uses the
> annotation to find all of the commands, rather than hardcoding them.
> We use the same annotation design for the api side of the code on the
> management server, which allows the api commands to be easier to write
> and self-contained (you don't have to update other code to add a new
> api call). It makes things easier for novice developers.
> This implementation is no less typesafe than the previous design (the
> one with all of the instanceof). It didn't require any casting or
> warning suppression, either, as the wrapper does.
> Extending LibvirtComputingResource is not ideal, and doesn't work if
> multiple third parties are involved. Granted, there hasn't been a lot
> of demand for this, nevertheless it's particularly important for KVM,
> where the Command classes are executed on the hypervisor it's not
> really feasible to just dump the code in your management server-side
> plugin like some plugins do.
> In reviewing the code, the two implementations are really very close.
> If you just updated init to fetch the wrappers based on either an
> annotation or the class they extend, or something along those lines so
> this method doesn't have to be edited every time a command is added,
> that would be more or less the same thing. The the KVM agent would be
> pluggable like the management server side is.
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Wilder Rodrigues
> <> wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
> Apologies for taking so much time to reply to your email, but was, and
> still
> am, quite busy. :)
> I would only use reflection if that was the only way to do it. The use of
> reflection usually makes the code more complex, which is not good when we
> have java developers in all different levels (from jr. do sr) working with
> cloudstack. It also makes us lose the type safety, which might also harm
> the
> exception handling if not done well. In addition, if we need to refactor
> something, the IDE is no longer going to do few things because the
> refection
> code cannot be found.
> If someone will need to extend the LibvirtComputingResource that would be
> no
> problem with the approach I’m using. The CitrixResourceBase also has quite
> few sub-classes and it works just fine.
> I will document on the wiki page how it should be done when sub-classing
> the
> LibvirtComputingResource class.
> In a quick note/snippet, one would do:
> public class EkhoComputingResource extends LibvirtComputingResource {
>       @Override
>    public Answer executeRequest(final Command cmd) {
>        final LibvirtRequestWrapper wrapper =
> LibvirtRequestWrapper.getInstance();
>        try {
>            return wrapper.execute(cmd, this);
>        } catch (final Exception e) {
>            return Answer.createUnsupportedCommandAnswer(cmd);
>        }
>    }
> }
> In the flyweight where I keep the wrapper we could have ():
>        final Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>, CommandWrapper>
> linbvirtCommands = new Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>,
> CommandWrapper>();
>        linbvirtCommands.put(StopCommand.class, new
> LibvirtStopCommandWrapper());
>        final Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>, CommandWrapper>
> ekhoCommands = new Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>, CommandWrapper>();
>        linbvirtCommands.put(StopCommand.class, new
> EkhoStopCommandWrapper());
>        resources.put(LibvirtComputingResource.class, linbvirtCommands);
>        resources.put(EkhoComputingResource.class, ekhoCommands);
> But that is needed only if the StopCommand has a different behaviour for
> the
> EkhoComputingResource.
> Once a better version of the documentation is on the wiki, I will let you
> know.
> On other matters, I’m also adding unit tests for all the changes. We
> already
> went from 4% to 13.6% coverage in the KVM hypervisor plugin. The code I
> already refactored has 56% of coverage.
> You can see all the commits here:
> Cheers,
> Wilder
> On 23 Apr 2015, at 17:26, Marcus <> wrote:
> Great to see someone working on it. What sorts of roadblocks came out
> of reflection? How does the wrapper design solve the pluggability
> issue? This is pretty important to me, since I've worked with several
> companies now that end up subclassing LibvirtComputingResource in
> order to handle their own Commands on the hypervisor from their
> server-side plugins, and changing their 'resource' to that in
> Since the main agent class needs to be set at agent
> join, this is harder to manage than it should be.
> I mentioned the reflection model because that's how I tend to handle
> the commands when subclassing LibvirtComputingResource. I haven't had
> any problems with it, but then again I haven't tried to refactor 5500
> lines into that model, either.
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Wilder Rodrigues
> <> wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
> I like the annotation idea, but reflection is trick because it hides some
> information about the code.
> Please, have a look at the CitrixResourceBase after the refactor I did. It
> became quite smaller and test coverage was improved.
> URL:
> The same patter is being about to Libvirt stuff. The coverage on the KVM
> hypervisor plugin already went from 4 to 10.5% after refactoring 6 commands
> Cheers,
> Wilder
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 23:06, Marcus <> wrote:
> Kind of a tangent, but I'd actually like to see some work done to
> clean up LibvirtComputing resource. One model I've prototyped that
> seems to work is to create an annotation, such as
> 'KVMCommandExecutor', with a 'handles' property. With this annotation,
> you implement a class that handles, e.g. StartCommand, etc. Then in
> LibvirtComputingResource, the 'configure' method fetches all of these
> executors via reflection and stores them in an object. Then, instead
> of having all of the 'instanceof' lines in LibvirtComputingResource,
> the executeRequest method fetches the executor that handles the
> incoming command and runs it.
> I think this would break up LibvirtComputingResource into smaller,
> more testable and manageable chunks, and force things like config and
> utility methods to move to a more sane location, as well. As a bonus,
> this model makes things pluggable. Someone could ship KVM plugin code
> containing standalone command executors that are discovered at runtime
> for things they need to run at the hypervisor level.
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Wilder Rodrigues
> <> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Yesterday I started working on the LibvirtComputingResource class in order
> to apply the same patterns I used in the CitrixResourceBase + add more unit
> tests to it After 10 hours of work I got a bit stuck with the 1st test,
> which would cover the refactored LibvirtStopCommandWrapper. Why did I get
> stuck? The class used a few static methods that call native libraries,
> which
> I would like to mock. However, when writing the tests I faced problems with
> the current Mockito/PowerMock we are using: they are simply not enough for
> the task.
> What did I do then? I added a dependency to EasyMock and PowerMock-EasyMock
> API. It worked almost fine, but I had to add a “-noverify” to both my
> Eclipse Runtime configuration and also to the
> cloud-plugin-hypervisor-kvm/pom.xml file. I agree that’s not nice, but was
> my first attempt of getting it to work. After trying to first full build I
> faced more problems related to ClassDefNotFoundExpcetion which were
> complaining about Mockito classes. I then found out that adding the
> PowerMockRunner to all the tests classes was going to be a heavy burden and
> would also mess up future changes (e.g. the -noverify flag was removed from
> Java 8, thus adding it now would be a problem soon).
> Now that the first 2 paragraphs explain a bit about the problem, let’s get
> to the solution: Java 8
> The VerifyError that I was getting was due to the use of the latest
> EasyMock
> release (3.3.1). I tried to downgrade it to 3.1/3.2 but it also did not
> work. My decision: do not refactor if the proper tests cannot be added.
> This
> left me with one action: migrate to Java 8.
> There were mentions about Java 8 in february[1] and now I will put some
> energy in making it happen.
> What is your opinion on it?
> Thanks in advance.
> Cheers,
> Wilder
> <<

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