ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>
Subject Re: supporting different configuration format json,yaml...
Date Tue, 15 May 2018 17:00:38 GMT
How are you going to translate this YAML config to Spring config?

How would you deal with something like [1]?

[1] -
https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/platforms/cpp/odbc-test/config/queries-ssl-32.xml

Best Regards,
Igor

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Pavel Kovalenko <jokserfn@gmail.com> wrote:

> Igor,
>
> Just get one of the config samples and translate it directly to YAML:
> XML - https://pastebin.com/wtQXXq8f
> YAML - https://pastebin.com/akGu3e81
>
> 2018-05-15 18:49 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego <isapego@apache.org>:
>
> > Guys, if you think the YAML or JSON would be better, how about
> > you provide us a brief example of how such configs are going to
> > look, so we can compare and see, if this ever have any sense.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > Maybe we should take .Net configuration as a standard, extend it to
> JSON
> > > and YAML?
> > >
> > > <goog_787531833>
> > > https://apacheignite-net.readme.io/docs/configuration
> > >
> > > It should be fairly robust, and there's much less boilerplate.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > > 2018-05-15 16:09 GMT+03:00 Pavel Kovalenko <jokserfn@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > +1 to Dmitriy G. proposal.
> > > >
> > > > Since we're moving Ignite towards outside of Java world, we should
> > > > definitely care about config usability for users who are not familiar
> > > with
> > > > Java/Spring.
> > > > If we take a look at any of our XML-configs, we can see a lot of
> > > > boilerplate like "<bean class="">", "<property name="">" -
terms
> which
> > > say
> > > > nothing to users outside of Java world.
> > > > When I see such configs my eyes are filled with bloody tears.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should really consider YAML as our additional approach to
> > > > configure Ignite with full replacement instead of XML in future.
> > > > Comparing to XML, YAML is significantly more human-readable and
> > > lightweight
> > > > format and has stable Java library to parse and translate config
> files
> > to
> > > > Java objects without extra-magic.
> > > >
> > > > We can find a lot of famous projects which are using YAML: Apache
> > Flink,
> > > > Apache Storm/Heron and one of the our main rivals - Apache Cassandra.
> > > >
> > > > Some of the projects use simple <property>=<name> config form
(Kafka,
> > > > Spark), some of the projects use their own YAML-like format
> (Aerospike,
> > > > Tarantool), but it's really difficult to find such project which has
> so
> > > > heavy config as us (maybe VoltDB).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-05-15 14:02 GMT+03:00 Andrey Gura <agura@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually sometimes users ask about JSON configuration (e.g. was PR
> in
> > > > > vertx-ignite project). But it's non trivial task because it will
> > > > > require development of some DSL (or set of DSL's) and will make
> > adding
> > > > > new configuration elements some kind of pain while we should be
> > > > > focused on basic functionality: data grid, persistence, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just believe that configuration format is not so important aspect
> > > > > and this task is out of product scope.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > > <dsetrakyan@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > I still do not understand *why* do we need to add additional
> > formats
> > > > for
> > > > > > the configuration. Can you please show me some users on the
user@
> > > list
> > > > > or
> > > > > > stack overflow who asked for it? I just want to make sure that
if
> > we
> > > > are
> > > > > > creating work for ourselves, then someone actually needs it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Igor Sapego <
> isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I don't think we need to add new formats on server side
as there
> > may
> > > > > >> be a lot of different formats for different clients. On
the
> other
> > > > hand,
> > > > > >> supporting additional formats may be non trivial and
> error-prone,
> > > > while
> > > > > >> adding little to a user experience.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> For clients, I see no problem in adding for example JSON
-> XML
> > > > > >> converter on client side, if JS folks need it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> For servers, adding another configuration format just to
make it
> > > more
> > > > > >> familiar to users with no Java background seems unreasonable
to
> me
> > > > > >> as well, as there still going to be Java class names in
> > > configuration
> > > > > >> and Spring approach in general.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What will change is a XML formatting is going to change
to JSON
> > > > > >> formatting, which has no much sense to me, as everyone know
XML.
> > > > > >> It is Spring approach what can be confusing to non-Java
users,
> and
> > > > > >> it is not going to change regardless of format.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best Regards,
> > > > > >> Igor
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> > > > > >> dmitriy.govorukhin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Folks,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I guess when work on a thin client will be completed,
we get
> > more
> > > > > >> newcomers
> > > > > >> > who use go/python/php/js.
> > > > > >> > And we can do ignite more friendly for them, support
familiar
> > > > formats
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > configuration.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <
> > > > > dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > In general I aggree with adding new format, e.g.
JSON is
> more
> > > > > popular
> > > > > >> > than
> > > > > >> > > XML for new applications.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > In the same time I've never heard that user asked
this in
> the
> > > user
> > > > > >> list.
> > > > > >> > Or
> > > > > >> > > did I missed such topics?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Sincerely,
> > > > > >> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > вт, 15 мая 2018 г. в 9:31, Pavel Tupitsyn
<
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > We don't need to support different config
formats on
> server
> > in
> > > > > order
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > add
> > > > > >> > > > that to thin clients.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Thin client protocol provides a way to create
a cache with
> > > > custom
> > > > > >> > config
> > > > > >> > > > [1].
> > > > > >> > > > It is up to thin client library authors to
use any config
> > > format
> > > > > they
> > > > > >> > > like
> > > > > >> > > > and then convert it into protocol-defined
format.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > C# thin client uses custom format, for example,
not
> Spring.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > [1]
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/binary-client-
> > > > > >> > > protocol-cache-configuration-operations#section-op_cache_
> > > > > >> > > create_with_configuration
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Ivan Rakov
<
> > > > > ivan.glukos@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > We rely on Spring Framework when we
start Ignite node
> from
> > > XML
> > > > > >> > > > > configuration. Spring doesn't easily
support another
> > formats
> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > configuration files. I think, the main
reason for this
> is
> > > > > built-in
> > > > > >> > > > ability
> > > > > >> > > > > to validate configuration via XML Schema.
We can surely
> > hack
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > around
> > > > > >> > > > (I
> > > > > >> > > > > bet there are existing libraries for
configuring Spring
> > with
> > > > > JSON),
> > > > > >> > > but I
> > > > > >> > > > > don't think that anyone suffered from
inability to
> > > statically
> > > > > >> > configure
> > > > > >> > > > > Ignite with json/yaml.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Regarding thin clients: makes sense.
I suppose necessary
> > > > > mappings
> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > implemented as a part of thin client.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > Ivan Rakov
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On 14.05.2018 18:58, Dmitriy Govorukhin
wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >> Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > >> As far as I know, many people work
on a thin client for
> > > > > different
> > > > > >> > > > language
> > > > > >> > > > >> (go,js,php...).
> > > > > >> > > > >> Are there any reasons why ignite
does not support yaml
> or
> > > > json
> > > > > >> > format
> > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > >> configuration? or some other popular
format?
> > > > > >> > > > >> In future, it can help to integrate
with thin clients,
> > for
> > > > > >> example,
> > > > > >> > js
> > > > > >> > > > >> client may want to dynamic cache
start, he passes cache
> > > > > >> > configuration
> > > > > >> > > > (in
> > > > > >> > > > >> native format, for js it will json)
through TCP, Ignite
> > > node
> > > > > >> unwrap
> > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > >> remap to java representation and
dynamic start cache.
> > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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