ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Thin client / Binary protocol: questions
Date Wed, 28 Feb 2018 19:44:22 GMT
Guys, please consider my five cents

>>> - Name/password authentication.
> >>> When will it be available in the spec?
> >>> Is there any draft we can look at?
> It is still under development. Will be available in several weeks. It is
> better to skip this part for now.


Let's give a reference to the branch where the guys can see those changes
at the protocol level. My guess they want to know what to expect and how it
can affect the design they've been working on. *Alexey Kukushkin*, please
point out to your Java thin client branch were you already have this
functionality embedded.

>>> - SSL/TLS communication.
> >>> When will it be available in the spec?


This doc explains how SSL is enabled on the server side:
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/ssltls

As always, the thin client needs to establish the SSL tunneling first and
then starts sending the protocol messages. Hope this is good for the
beginning. Will be happy to answer more specific questions.

>>>  - May we easily use 3rd-party components with the following licenses?
> As a general rule of thumb it is not recommended to use any external
> libraries. The whole Ignite core is built with almost no dependencies, not
> to say about much less complex thin clients ans JDBC/ODBC drivers. IMO the
> only possible place where external dependency might be required is SSL
> support (e.g. we use OpenSSL for ODBC).


I wouldn't discourage Alexey from using 3rd party libs taking Ignite core
as an example. Ignite optional libs use 3rd party libs a lot. Take our REST
protocol for instance that uses Jetty and not based on its own HTTP server
implementation. So, I would alter the rule of thumb a little bit - if it
takes weeks to develop a functionality already available in a 3rd party lib
then let's go for the 3rd party.

Here is a list of licenses that can be included in Ignite without any extra
permissions or licensing concerns:
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

According to the doc you're free to use Apache 2.0 and MIT, but LGPL code
can't be delivered within Ignite.

--
Denis

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> >>> Just to double-check - we should support the types from the spec only.
> Right?
> Please provide the list of types you are in doubt of
>
> >>> - Key-Value and SQL and Scan Queries.
> >>>  The most of operations has "Flag" field in Request: "Pass 0 for
> default, or 1 to keep the value in binary form."
> >>>  What is it for?
> Please see IgniteCache.withKeepBinary method. For SQL this flag has no
> effect. For complex SCAN queries with filters this defines whether with
> pass real objects or binary objects to the filter.
>
> >>>  Java and .net libs always pass 0. Why?
> There is no Java client at the moment. As far as .NET, it doesn't support
> binary mode at the moment.
>
> >>>  Why an app working remotely via the binary protocol should know the
> exact platform where the node is running?
> Because if node is started from .NET, you may execute both Java filters and
> .NET fitlers on it. This flag defines what kind of filter is passed.
>
> >>> - Binary Type operations (register/get type name, put/get type).
> >>>  What are they for?
> >>>  What is a use case?
> Please get familiar with binary type concepts, especially binary metadata:
> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs#binaryobject-type-metadata
>
> >>>  - Just interesting - why it was decided that hash code should be also
> calculated on a client side? Why it could not be returned by a server side?
> Because this is inefficient - we would have to rebuild binary objects on
> the server side. Instead, it is better to implement pretty simple routine
> for hashcode calculation inside every client.
>
> >>> - Name/password authentication.
> >>> When will it be available in the spec?
> >>> Is there any draft we can look at?
> It is still under development. Will be available in several weeks. It is
> better to skip this part for now.
>
> >>> - SSL/TLS communication.
> >>> When will it be available in the spec?
> This is not part of protocol specification. Please refer to .NET client
> where it is already implemented. *Pavel*, do we have docs for this?
>
> >>> - As Denis said, we should implement a node failover algorithm
> (switching to another predefined node).
> >>> Should the algorithm be the same in all thin libs?
> >>> Is it described somewhere?
> >>> We have not found it in java and .net libs. Will it be supported by
> them? When?
> It is still under development, will be ready in 1-2 weeks. Please skip for
> now. Yes, it is better to have the same algorithm on all clients for the
> sake of consistency.
>
> >>> - We are going to write the lib readme/guide in the markdown format and
> place it at the repo (.md file).
> >>> Is it OK? Or should we use dash.readme.io ?
> All our documentation is hosted on readme.io. There should be no
> exclusions. *Denis*, could you make sure that necessary spaces and
> permissions are set up?
>
> >>>  - May we easily use 3rd-party components with the following licenses?
> As a general rule of thumb it is not recommended to use any external
> libraries. The whole Ignite core is built with almost no dependencies, not
> to say about much less complex thin clients ans JDBC/ODBC drivers. IMO the
> only possible place where external dependency might be required is SSL
> support (e.g. we use OpenSSL for ODBC).
>
> Vladimir.
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Alexey Kosenchuk <
> alexey.kosenchuk@nobitlost.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Designing node.js thin lib (IGNITE-7777) we have the following questions.
> > Could you please have a look and clarify.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alexey
> >
> > - Supported standard types and their type codes.
> >   Are defined in the spec: https://apacheignite.readme.io
> > /docs/binary-client-protocol#data-format
> >   But, as we see, java and .net libs (common parts which are used by thin
> > clients as well) support additional types and type codes, not described
> in
> > the spec. Eg. defined here: https://github.com/apache/igni
> > te/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > internal/binary/GridBinaryMarshaller.java
> >   Just to double-check - we should support the types from the spec only.
> > Right?
> >
> > - Key-Value and SQL and Scan Queries.
> >   The most of operations has "Flag" field in Request: "Pass 0 for
> default,
> > or 1 to keep the value in binary form."
> >   What is it for?
> >   Java and .net libs always pass 0. Why?
> >
> > - OP_QUERY_SCAN: Filter platform.
> >   Why is it required?
> >   Why an app working remotely via the binary protocol should know the
> > exact platform where the node is running?
> >
> > - Binary Type operations (register/get type name, put/get type).
> >   What are they for?
> >   What is a use case?
> >   It seems possible to put data of any binary object type into a cache
> w/o
> > registering type name and structure in advance.
> >
> > - OP_REGISTER_BINARY_TYPE_NAME, OP_GET_BINARY_TYPE_NAME: Platform id.
> >   Is it a type of the node platform?
> >   Why a remote app should know it?
> >   Why non-identical values are used here and in OP_QUERY_SCAN: Filter
> > platform?
> >
> > - OP_REGISTER_BINARY_TYPE_NAME, OP_PUT_BINARY_TYPE
> >   Why the both - Type name and Java-style hash code of the type name -
> are
> > in the request? (The same for Field name and Java-style hash code of the
> > field name.)
> >   Seems redundant.
> >
> > - Just interesting - why it was decided that hash code should be also
> > calculated on a client side? Why it could not be returned by a server
> side?
> >   Eg. OP_CACHE_CREATE_WITH_NAME Response can return hash code for the
> > provided Cache name.
> >   That would simplify thin client implementations, guarantee
> > consistency/correctness of hash code calculations...
> >
> > - Name/password authentication.
> >   When will it be available in the spec?
> >   Is there any draft we can look at?
> >
> > - SSL/TLS communication.
> >   When will it be available in the spec?
> >   Is there any draft we can look at?
> >
> > - As Denis said, we should implement a node failover algorithm (switching
> > to another predefined node).
> >   Should the algorithm be the same in all thin libs?
> >   Is it described somewhere?
> >   We have not found it in java and .net libs. Will it be supported by
> > them? When?
> >
> > - Is there any recommendation/suggestion how to test a node failover case
> > on a thin client side?
> >
> > - We are going to use jsdoc comments for the API methods:
> > http://usejsdoc.org/
> >   This tool, for example, may be used to generate the API spec from the
> > comments: https://www.npmjs.com/package/jsdoc
> >   Any objections?
> >
> > - We are going to write the lib readme/guide in the markdown format and
> > place it at the repo (.md file).
> >   Is it OK? Or should we use dash.readme.io ?
> >
> > - May we easily use 3rd-party components with the following licenses?
> >     -- Apache 2.0
> >     -- MIT
> >     -- GNU LGPL v3
> >     -- GNU GPL v2
> >   Should we pre-approve somehow / notify somebody about usage of concrete
> > 3rd-party components?
> >
>

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