geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Bretl <asf.mbr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Simple Java Client
Date Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:01:37 GMT
A little late to the party...a great thread for discussing options and
there is nothing 'simple' about it ;)

I agree with Jake to follow closer to industry protocols and standards
rather than creating our own. If we want to grow and sustain the Geode
community, adding 'features' which integrate with other communities seems
to be a viable approach.

--Mark

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Michael William Dodge <mdodge@pivotal.io>
wrote:

> I like the idea of a separate code base (including repo) for separate
> problem domains. I think trying to fit a new API inside or parallel to the
> existing API has too high of a likelihood of confusion.
>
> Sarge
>
> > On 26 Apr, 2017, at 16:52, Bruce Schuchardt <bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we should mix the old client code with a new API.  We
> should keep the new client code separate from the server.  Maybe even in a
> different repo, as I think Fred suggested.
> >
> > Le 4/26/2017 à 3:12 PM, Kirk Lund a écrit :
> >> If we want to add a new API then I suggest we create new API packages
> and
> >> leave the "cache" package as the old deprecated API for backwards
> >> compatibility.
> >>
> >> The new APIs and implementation could be separated into different geode
> >> modules and packages (something like what follows):
> >>
> >> org.apache.geode.api -- the main rich API (geode-api module and jar)
> >> org.apache.geode.api.client -- the new thin client API (geode-api-client
> >> module and jar)
> >> org.apache.geode.core -- the main implementation of api (geode-core
> module
> >> and jar which also currently contains the old API)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:41 AM, William Markito Oliveira <
> >> william.markito@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is an awesome discussion and Jake's hitting all the right notes
> about
> >>> why JCache is a good idea! I've fought that fight in the past and lost
> it
> >>> but I'm happy to see it coming back...
> >>>
> >>> What's really nice about Geode is that the functionalities and
> capabilities
> >>> are all there, they're just not that well exposed, known by others or
> >>> obscured by some decisions that doesn't apply anymore.
> >>>
> >>> It's the same conversation about monitoring and statistics...  All the
> >>> capability is there with JMX and Stats, but using an unknown custom
> format
> >>> or tool to display that data makes it not very appealing for OSS and
> >>> enterprise users that need workarounds and hacks to integrate with
> common
> >>> monitoring tools.
> >>>
> >>> Refactoring API Client APIs, documentation and implementation of a new
> >>> Protocol, Reactive APIs, better integration with standard monitoring
> tools
> >>> -  Sounds like good points for a 2.0 roadmap IMHO.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Jacob Barrett <jbarrett@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Wes,
> >>>>
> >>>> Those are almost all administrative commands and have no place on the
> >>>> client API. They belong on an administrative API or as I'm arguing a
> >>> series
> >>>> of MBeans/JMX as it is already an established standard.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Jake
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:09 AM Wes Williams <wwilliams@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> Now we're getting some precision. Let's talk about the "raw" Geode
> >>>>> proprietary bad ass API!  Would that "raw" Geode proprietary bad
ass
> >>> API
> >>>>> "raw"
> >>>>> Geode proprietary bad ass API that we're talking about be centered
> >>> around
> >>>>> the commands found here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/tree/rel/v1.1.1/geode-
> >>>> core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/management/internal/cli/commands
> >>>>> Or somewhere else?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Wes Williams | Pivotal Advisory **Data Engineer*
> >>>>> 781.606.0325
> >>>>> http://pivotal.io/big-data/pivotal-gemfire
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarrett@pivotal.io
> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Java and its community have standards for all of these issue
so why
> >>>>>> re-invent the wheel. The market doesn't want proprietary anymore,
> >>> they
> >>>>> want
> >>>>>> standards and mobility.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Configuration of the server should happen through MBeans. You
can
> >>> wrap
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>> in gfsh for command line, REST for remote web based admin, use
> >>> JConsole
> >>>>> or
> >>>>>> any other number of JMX based enterprise management tools. By
using
> >>>>> MBeans
> >>>>>> the server can easily expose new discovered services without
the
> need
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> code specific gfsh commands, REST interfaces or APIs. There
is no
> >>>> reason
> >>>>> my
> >>>>>> SDG can't be retooled to "discover" the configuration from these
> >>> MBeans
> >>>>> as
> >>>>>> well rather than having to be touched every time we add or change
> >>>>>> something. There are tools and books already written that
> >>> implementors
> >>>>> can
> >>>>>> consult on MBeans. There isn't anything out there on gfsh commands.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we want to play in the Java community, especially J2EE (the
other
> >>>> 50%
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> Java that isn't Spring), then we had better have a JSR-107 answer
no
> >>>>> matter
> >>>>>> what the pain is to provide it. I can pull dozens of books of
the
> >>> shelf
> >>>>>> that teach me how to effectively use a JCache, how many can
I pull
> >>> off
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> shelf that teach me Geode's API? How many engineers can I get
> >>>>> applications
> >>>>>> form by saying "must have Geode API knowledge"? I can find people
> >>> with
> >>>>>> JCache knowledge though. So from in implementor's perspective
having
> >>>>>> standards is a must. Now I don't think the JSR-107 interface
should
> >>> be
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> root interface but rather a facade on the "raw" Geode proprietary
> bad
> >>>> ass
> >>>>>> API. That API should be 100% asynchronous (reactive, SEDA, whatever
> >>> the
> >>>>>> current buzzword for asynchronous is today). Around that API
we can
> >>>>> provide
> >>>>>> facades for JSR 107, ConcurrentMap (our current yet not so well
> >>>> behaving
> >>>>>> API), List, Queue, etc. Maybe even JPA, JCA, etc. The thought
of
> >>>> putting
> >>>>>> all those features into a single API makes my head exploded
and they
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>>> need to be like they are today.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:25 PM Wes Williams <wwilliams@pivotal.io>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> A couple of points to interact with John's points.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> GFSH as API
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We agree that GFSH is a DSL, and a really good and useful
one. We
> >>>> agree
> >>>>>>> that we don't want our API tied to GFSH syntax. I view the
valuable
> >>>>> part
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> GemFire admin as the Java code underneath GFSH, or the "Commands."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For example, to create a JAVA API to "Create Region",  why
not
> >>>> create a
> >>>>>>> Java API around CreateAlterDestroyRegionCommands? In this
way,
> >>> GFSH
> >>>> and
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> JAVA API share the same code. It seems too obvious yet I
don't see
> >>> it
> >>>>>> being
> >>>>>>> recommended.  Why not?  (Note: the hard-coded formatting
would need
> >>>> to
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>> removed).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Once you have the Java/GFSH/REST API as common code, you
then
> >>>> refactor
> >>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>> What's the objection to this approach? Once you open Java
API's to
> >>> do
> >>>>>>> everything that GFSH does, then you have now unshackled
the power
> >>> of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> developer (the JAVA API) and the admin (GFSH API).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> REST API
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've found that most don't want to use the Dev REST API
because
> >>> it's
> >>>>>>> attached to a server rather than the cluster. HA?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *Wes Williams | Pivotal Advisory **Data Engineer*
> >>>>>>> 781.606.0325 <(781)%20606-0325>
> >>>>>>> http://pivotal.io/big-data/pivotal-gemfire
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Fred Krone <fkrone@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Good feedback.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This would use the new protocol.  I should have mentioned
that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The original driver for this was the Region API needs
either an
> >>>>> update
> >>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>> an alternative.  Updating has a few drawbacks: Region
wasn't
> >>>> designed
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> open source in-mind and as Swap mentioned it is naturally
tightly
> >>>>>>> coupled.
> >>>>>>>> Members of the community are already working to update
Region but
> >>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>> gets fixed and it breaks something for someone else.
 I think
> >>> it's
> >>>>> much
> >>>>>>>> better to provide a new interface that implements the
first part
> >>> of
> >>>>> JSR
> >>>>>>> 107
> >>>>>>>> (javax.cache) and get the ball rolling for the community
and,
> >>>>> perhaps,
> >>>>>>> over
> >>>>>>>> time deprecate Region (although that's not a primary
objective).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A Java driver will probably get built regardless just
to give the
> >>>> new
> >>>>>>>> protocol some legs. That driver also needs a decent
caching
> >>>>> interface.
> >>>>>>> JSR
> >>>>>>>> 107 has already solved that part.  So let's get started
on it.
> >>> If
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> community wants to go the whole way and continue JSR
107
> >>>>> implementation
> >>>>>>>> after that that's awesome.  Functions can also be added,
etc.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I intentionally did not mention anything about PCF as
this
> >>> pertains
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> Geode itself as an open source offering and developer
experience.
> >>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>> writing as a member of the community. Ie: I'm a developer
who
> >>> would
> >>>>>> like
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> add some caching to my application -- I can download
either Geode
> >>>> or
> >>>>>>>> Hazelcast for free and right now it's a no brainer.
 Not that we
> >>>>>> wouldn't
> >>>>>>>> keep PCF in-mind but it's out of scope for this thread.
 I do
> >>>> believe
> >>>>>>>> getting started on a Java driver for the protocol and
a
> >>>> standardized
> >>>>>>>> caching API are easily leveraged wins across the board.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Swapnil Bawaskar <
> >>>>>> sbawaskar@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I had looked at the JCache in the past and here
are some of the
> >>>>>> things
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> noted:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Naming convention: Geode's region is a Cache in
JSR-107, and
> >>>>> Geode's
> >>>>>>>> Cache
> >>>>>>>>> is a CacheManager. I think it would be too confusing
to change
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> meaning
> >>>>>>>>> of cache. Also, how do you document this given that
Cache means
> >>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>> things if you are talking JCache vs Geode.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The way to create a Cache in JSR-107 is:
> >>>>>>>>> Cache<Integer, Date> cache = manager.createCache(cacheName,
> >>>>>>> Configuration
> >>>>>>>>> c);
> >>>>>>>>> Where it is upto the implementation to extend Configuration.
> >>>> Given
> >>>>>>> this,
> >>>>>>>>> users will not be able to switch from an existing
> >>> implementation
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>> ours;
> >>>>>>>>> will have to write new code specially Configuration,
making
> >>>>> callbacks
> >>>>>>>>> serializable etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> JSR-107 will not be limited to the client. Server
side
> >>> callbacks
> >>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>> CacheLoader, CacheListener etc. will need handle
on jsr-107
> >>>>> “cache”.
> >>>>>>>>> JSR-107 supports features like an EntryProcessor,
which is a
> >>>>> function
> >>>>>>>>> invoked atomically on an entry operation. We will
have to make
> >>>>>> invasive
> >>>>>>>>> changes to Geode to support this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Given these, I don't think supporting JSR-107 is
trivial.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:55 PM Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> What transport are you planning on using? REST,
or the
> >>> current
> >>>>>> binary
> >>>>>>>>>> protocol? Or is this just a wrapper around the
existing java
> >>>>> client
> >>>>>>>> APIs?
> >>>>>>>>>> If this about creating a new API, I agree with
what John is
> >>>>> saying
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> need reduce the number of APIs we have to do
the same thing
> >>> in
> >>>>>> java.
> >>>>>>> It
> >>>>>>>>>> seems especially confusing if we end up with
different APIs
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>>> distinct features - like being able to create
a region on the
> >>>>>> server
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>> this new API but only being able to invoke a
function with
> >>> the
> >>>>> old
> >>>>>>> API.
> >>>>>>>>>> The other thing I think we need to avoid is
being able to do
> >>>>> things
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>> the client (or gfsh, or xml, ...) that don't
have a java API
> >>> on
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> server.
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm assuming your getOrCreateRegion region is
supposed behave
> >>>>> like
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> gfsh
> >>>>>>>>>> command and update the cluster configuration?
+++1 to Wes's
> >>>>>>> suggestion
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> a public API for executing these gfsh operations.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I really think we need to work on having *one*
authoritative
> >>>>> public
> >>>>>>> API
> >>>>>>>>>> that contains everything that we support on
the server. The
> >>>>>> protocols
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> support (REST, binary, ...) and the client drivers
that use
> >>>> those
> >>>>>>>>> protocols
> >>>>>>>>>> should just be ways of accessing that API. The
Java API on
> >>> the
> >>>>>> server
> >>>>>>>>> right
> >>>>>>>>>> now the closest thing we have to this, but there
are things
> >>> you
> >>>>> can
> >>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>> gfsh and things you can do with the current
client that have
> >>> no
> >>>>>> java
> >>>>>>>> API
> >>>>>>>>>> equivalent. I think we really need to fix that!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Also, preferably we won't have to hand code
a bunch of stuff
> >>> in
> >>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>> client driver and protocol whenever we add a
new feature. For
> >>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> were to add a geode function to invoke each
new API we add,
> >>>> that
> >>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>> API
> >>>>>>>>>> would be accessible from REST, gfsh, the java
client etc.
> >>> Later
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>> add syntatic sugar to make the new API prettier,
but if we
> >>> had
> >>>> a
> >>>>>> low
> >>>>>>>>> level
> >>>>>>>>>> API that automatically exposed all new features
that would
> >>> make
> >>>>>>> adding
> >>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>> features much less painful.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I do like the idea of adding a reactive API.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>  Supporting JSR-107 might be nice - but that
could probably
> >>> be
> >>>>>>> written
> >>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>> as a wrapper around the current API without
too much work. I
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> should do anything for JSR-107 other than provide
a JSR-107
> >>>>>>> compatible
> >>>>>>>>>> wrapper - if someone wants additional geode
specific features
> >>>>> they
> >>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>> drop into the existing API.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I also like the idea of a smaller client jar
and
> >>> dependencies,
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>> there is a huge amount of room for improvement
in our
> >>> existing
> >>>>>> client
> >>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>> by refactoring the code a bit more and shinking
geode-core
> >>>> into a
> >>>>>>> bare
> >>>>>>>>>> minimum.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Fred Krone
<
> >>> fkrone@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's great, Wes.  I will take a look.
 Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> John -- good feedback to consider and I
was hoping this
> >>> would
> >>>>>> come
> >>>>>>>> up.
> >>>>>>>>>>> "In my mind, there really are only 2 approaches...
*Spring*
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> non-*Spring*,
> >>>>>>>>>>> or rather PCF and non-PCF, and since PCF
is primarily based
> >>>> on
> >>>>>> Boot
> >>>>>>>>>> (given
> >>>>>>>>>>> Microservices/applications are the new concurrency),
then I
> >>>> am
> >>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>> saying the same thing."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This would be cover non spring and attempt
to give the
> >>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>>>>> that had the same standardized experience
as JSR 107 --
> >>>>> starting
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cache interface itself.  Although we don't
necessarily have
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> implement
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cache, it's method signatures are essentially
a (non
> >>> spring)
> >>>>>>> caching
> >>>>>>>>>>> standard for Java developers at this point.
  We considered
> >>>>> full
> >>>>>>>> blown
> >>>>>>>>>> JSR
> >>>>>>>>>>> 107 implementation but thought it was too
robust for the
> >>>> needs
> >>>>>>>>> mentioned
> >>>>>>>>>>> (that's not to say we couldn't get there
incrementally).  I
> >>>>> think
> >>>>>>>> those
> >>>>>>>>>>> needs still exist open-source outside of
PCF and don't
> >>>>>> cannibalize.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Real Wes
<
> >>>>>> TheRealWes@outlook.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a simple Java client _for enterprise
use_ that I
> >>>>>>> developed
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Geode and distributed to several enterprises.
It has
> >>>>>> similarities
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> differences for your goal. This project
creates both
> >>> server
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> client
> >>>>>>>>>>>> regions dynamically.  It lists regions,
alters regions…
> >>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>> anything
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that GFSH can do. It differs in that
it calls GFSH to do
> >>>> its
> >>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>> rather
> >>>>>>>>>>>> than a Java interface. You can think
of this as a Java
> >>> API
> >>>> on
> >>>>>> top
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> GFSH.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can use this model and keep the
similarities while
> >>>>>> adjusting
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Java interface.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Similarities
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Client uses SDG and complies with
JSR-107
> >>>>>>>>>>>>      [the Cache Manager is here:
> >>>> https://github.com/Pivotal-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Data-Engineering/ClusterManagement/tree/master/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> cluster-management-client/src/main/java/com/geode/cache/manager
> >>>>>> ]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - After the server creates its region,
client creates its
> >>>>>> region
> >>>>>>>>>>>>      [ see createRegions at: https://github.com/Pivotal-
> >>>>>>>>>>> Data-Engineering/
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ClusterManagement/blob/master/cluster-management-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> client/src/main/java/com/geode/cache/manager/
> >>>>>>>> RegionCreator.java<https://
> >>>>>>>>>>>> github.com/Pivotal-Data-Engineering/ClusterManagement/
> >>>>>>>>>>> blob/master/cluster-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> management-client/src/main/java/com/geode/cache/manager/
> >>>>>>>>>>> RegionCreator.java>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Differences
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Server dynamically calls GFSH to execute
commands
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How it works
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Whenever the client calls a region
that does not exist,
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> client
> >>>>>>>>>>> looks
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for a <region name>.properties
file. If the properties
> >>> file
> >>>>>>> exists,
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> region is created with the dynamic properties.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - If <region name>.properties
does not exist, default
> >>>> region
> >>>>>>>>> properties
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are loaded and used to create the region.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - properties are formed into a GFSH
string and passed to
> >>> a
> >>>>>> server
> >>>>>>>>>>> function
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - The server function calls GFSH using
internal calls. It
> >>>>> calls
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GfshParser, executes the command, and
then returns the
> >>>> parsed
> >>>>>>>>> results.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [see https://github.com/Pivotal-Data-Engineering/
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ClusterManagement/blob/master/
> >>>> cluster-management-server/src/
> >>>>>>>>>>>> main/java/com/geode/gfsh/GfshCommand.java]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Limitations
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It uses internal calls to call GFSH.
I have made requests
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> stable public interface. Andrew Baker
had a good idea to
> >>>>> return
> >>>>>>>> gfsh
> >>>>>>>>>>>> results in JSON format with a new —results=json
property
> >>> to
> >>>>>> pass
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> GFSH.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Strengths
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is uses GFSH can be viewed as a
strength to keep a
> >>>>>>> consistent
> >>>>>>>>> API,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> whether Java or GFSH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> TESTS
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can start by running server tests
at:
> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/Pivotal-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Data-Engineering/ClusterManagement/tree/master/
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cluster-management-server/src/test/java/com/geode/gfsh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Client tests are at:
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/Pivotal-Data-Engineering/
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ClusterManagement/tree/master/
> >>>> cluster-management-client/src/
> >>>>>>>>>>>> test/java/com/geode/management/client
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wes Williams
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Kirk Lund
<klund@apache.org
> >>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>> klund
> >>>>>>>>>>>> @apache.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A couple things I'd like to see:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) completely new API that doesn't reuse
the old API
> >>>> classes
> >>>>>> (or
> >>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>> least
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not the giant classes such as Cache
and Region
> >>> interfaces)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) separation of API and Impl so that
users can compile
> >>>> their
> >>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a dedicated client API jar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Fred
Krone <
> >>>>> fkrone@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>> fkro
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ne@pivotal.io>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In an effort to improve Java developer
ease of use for
> >>>>> caching
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> Geode I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> am looking for feedback on going forward
with creating a
> >>>> Java
> >>>>>>>> client.
> >>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>> client will allow for server-side region
creation and
> >>>>>> distributed
> >>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>> caching.  This would allow for a thin
client that fits
> >>> with
> >>>>>>>>>> microservice
> >>>>>>>>>>>> caching patterns and also abstracts
a cleaner
> >>> client-server
> >>>>>>>>> experience
> >>>>>>>>>>>> driven interface.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Initially we were going to update the
Region interface
> >>> but
> >>>>> were
> >>>>>>>>>> concerned
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with breaking existing applications.
 We also would like
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>>>>> Region
> >>>>>>>>>>>> creation to a client application and
so propose here
> >>>> solving
> >>>>>> both
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>> areas with a Java client.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would have new project repo for the
client.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would provide new Region interface
for clients.  The
> >>>>>> specifics
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> API design are too lengthy for this
conversation but
> >>>>>>> implementation
> >>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> resemble JSR 107 Cache interface.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would use the new security framework.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *An example*,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The client application simply creates
an instance of
> >>> client
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> points
> >>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to the locator:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.geode.client.Client client
=
> >>>>>>> Client.create(locatorHost,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> locatorPort);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Client has the following methods:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> package org.apache.geode.client;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> public interface GeodeClient {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  /**
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>   * creates the region on the servers,
or gets the region
> >>>> if
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> exits,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> returns a PROXY region
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>   */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  public Region getOrCreateRegion(RegionAttributes
> >>>> attributes,
> >>>>>>>> String
> >>>>>>>>>>>> name);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  /**
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>   * Returns a PROXY region if the region
exists on the
> >>>> server
> >>>>>>>>>>>>   */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  public Region getRegion(String name);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> MVP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The smallest set of features to test
this idea, learn and
> >>>>>>> iterate,
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the client into the communities hands
for future
> >>> iterations
> >>>>> is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Create a server side Region from a client
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Region interface has CRUD on par with
javax.cache.Cache
> >>>> (from
> >>>>>> JSR
> >>>>>>>>> 107)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Calls are asynchronous -- futures
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also would like feedback on which future
functionality
> >>>> would
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>>>>> useful
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from a thin client:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Function execution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Durable clients
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> User defined serialization
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Register interest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Queries
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> CQ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Near side caching
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Create disk stores from client
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Region group membership
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Client subscription load balancing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Transactions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Fred
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ~/William
> >>>
> >
>
>

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