mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Java API for MXNet
Date Wed, 16 Aug 2017 20:02:04 GMT
Hi, Joern,

when you say "Java API " it's sharing scala impl or not?

Best,

Nan

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Joern Kottmann <kottmann@gmail.com> wrote:

> Seems like we are all agree about the idea to add a Java API.
>
> Maybe it is just me, but it wouldn't at all make sense for me (OpenNLP
> use case) to use the Java API when it requires a Scala dependency,
> because at that point I would be better of just using the Scala API,
> and ensure that the things I build are compatible with Java.
>
> So if I don't want to add Scala as a dependency then I am better off
> building something on top of a generated JNI layer. As far as I can
> tell from my tests with the scala-package you can get quite far with
> MXNet using NDArray and the Symbol API.
>
> Maybe we could work on this from two sides as described by Pracheer.
> If we have a well defined Java API you could look at the work I have
> done by then and see how it can be plugged in or what can be learnt
> from it.
>
> Jörn
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcgill@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 for Sandeep's suggestion
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:21 AM, YiZhi Liu <javelinjs@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Agree with Sandeep, while I guess the performance won't change. But
> >> yes, benchmark talks.
> >>
> >> Moreover, in Scala package we use macros to generate operators
> >> automatically, which will require more efforts if we switch to pure
> >> Java.
> >>
> >> 2017-08-17 2:12 GMT+08:00 sandeep krishnamurthy <
> >> sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com>:
> >> > The fastest way to get Java binding is through building Java native
> >> > wrappers on Scala package.
> >> > Disadvantages would be:
> >> >    * *Bloated library size: *May not be suitable for users planning to
> >> use
> >> > Java APIs in Android of such smaller systems.
> >> >    * *Performance:* Performance may not be as good as building
> directly
> >> > over JNI and implementing ground up. For example, taking NDArray
> >> dimensions
> >> > as Java ArrayList then converting it to Scala Seq to adapt for Scala
> >> > NDArray API and more such adapters.
> >> >
> >> > However, building ground up from JNI would be a huge effort without
> >> > actually getting feedback from users early.
> >> >
> >> > *My Plan:*
> >> > 1. Build Java interface on top of Scala package.
> >> > 2. Get early feedback from users. It may turn out Java is not a great
> >> > candidate for DL training jobs.
> >> > 3. Solidify the interface (APIs) for Java users.
> >> > 4. Do performance benchmarks to see Scala Native / Java interface.
> This
> >> > gives us comparable numbers on performance in Java.
> >> > 5. Over a period of time replace underlying Scala usage with JNI base
> and
> >> > native Java implementation. Provided feedback from users is positive.
> >> >
> >> > Comments/Suggestion?
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Sandeep
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:56 AM, YiZhi Liu <javelinjs@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What Nan and I worried about is the re-implementation of something
> >> >> like https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/
> >> >> scala-package/core/src/main/scala/ml/dmlc/mxnet/Model.scala#L246,
> >> >> and the executorManager, NDArray, KVStore ... it uses.
> >> >>
> >> >> the C API stays at the very low level. If this is the purpose, we can
> >> >> simply move ml.dmlc.mxnet.LibInfo to 'java' folder and compile
> without
> >> >> scala, no need to introduce JavaCPP. But I don't think this is what
> >> >> users want.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2017-08-17 1:41 GMT+08:00 Joern Kottmann <kottmann@gmail.com>:
> >> >> > There will be a new scala version one day, and the story we had
> with
> >> >> > going from 2.10 to 2.11 might just repeat. In the end if you make
a
> >> >> > dependency using scala you just end up making it for the currently
> >> >> > popular scala versions. And that might be ok for projects with
> >> >> > developers who are familiar with these issues, but it is not ok
for
> >> >> > java projects, where people might not expect it or know about
these
> >> >> > problems. It just makes it harder to use.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To me it looks like that the C API is very stable and used by
> all/most
> >> >> > other APIs. If we have a Java API - accessing the C API via
> JavaCPP -
> >> >> > then we should end up with a pretty stable solution and a lot
the
> code
> >> >> > that is duplicated with the Scala API is the generated code.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think we should explore this possible way of implementing it
> with a
> >> >> > proof-of-concept.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And if we have a well made Java API it might be something which
> maybe
> >> >> > wouldn't need a lot of additions to be pleasurable to use from
> scala.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jörn
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcgill@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> I don't think there will be problems under "11", did the user
see
> >> >> concrete
> >> >> >> errors?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Best,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nan
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, YiZhi Liu <javelinjs@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Hi Nan,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Users have 2.11, but with a different minor version, will
it
> cause
> >> >> >>> conflicts?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> 2017-08-17 0:19 GMT+08:00 Nan Zhu <zhunanmcgill@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >>> > Hi, Yizhi,
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > You mean users have 2.10 env while we assemble 2.11
in it?
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Best,
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Nan
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:08 AM, YiZhi Liu <
> javelinjs@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> Hi Joern,
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> The point is that, the front is not a simple
wrapper of
> c_api.h,
> >> as
> >> >> >>> >> you mentioned, which can be easily achieved by
JavaCPP.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> I have noticed the potential conflicts between
the assembled
> >> scala
> >> >> >>> >> library and the one in users' environment. Can
we remove the
> >> scala
> >> >> >>> >> library from the assembly jar? @Nan It wouldn't
be a problem
> >> since
> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> scala libraries with same major version are compatible.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> 2017-08-16 23:49 GMT+08:00 Joern Kottmann <kottmann@gmail.com
> >:
> >> >> >>> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > I personally had quite some issues with
Scala dependencies
> in
> >> >> >>> >> > different versions and Spark, where one
version is not
> >> compatible
> >> >> with
> >> >> >>> >> > the other version. Then you need to debug
the dependency
> tree
> >> to
> >> >> find
> >> >> >>> >> > the places where the versions don't match.
Every project
> which
> >> >> would
> >> >> >>> >> > like to use MXnet then has to depend on
Scala and might also
> >> get
> >> >> >>> >> > conflicts if other dependencies depend on
different Scala
> >> >> versions.
> >> >> >>> >> > Probably something which will cause issues
for some of your
> >> users.
> >> >> >>> >> > Users who want to use Java might not be
familiar with Scala
> >> >> dependency
> >> >> >>> >> > problems and have a hard time resolving
them by getting
> strange
> >> >> error
> >> >> >>> >> > messages.
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > The JNI layer could be generated with JavaCPP,
then we would
> >> not
> >> >> need
> >> >> >>> >> > to write/maintain the C and the  jvm side
for that our self.
> >> >> >>> >> > A good example of JavaCPP and Scala usage
is Apache Mahout
> [1].
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Even if we don't use JavaCPP, the JNI layer
should be easy
> to
> >> get
> >> >> into
> >> >> >>> >> > a state where both can share it, the current
Scala JNI
> layers
> >> >> LibInfo
> >> >> >>> >> > classes could be converted to Java classes
and would in most
> >> cases
> >> >> >>> >> > require only minor changes in the Scala
code.
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Jörn
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/mahout/tree/master/viennacl/
> >> >> src/main
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Nan Zhu
<
> >> zhunanmcgill@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> I agree with Yizhi
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> My major concern is the duplicate implementations,
which
> are
> >> >> usually
> >> >> >>> >> one of
> >> >> >>> >> >> the major sources of bugs, especially
with two languages
> which
> >> >> are
> >> >> >>> >> >> naturally interactive (OK, Calling Scala
from Java might
> need
> >> >> some
> >> >> >>> more
> >> >> >>> >> >> efforts). It is just like we provide
C++ & C APIs of MxNet
> in
> >> two
> >> >> >>> >> separated
> >> >> >>> >> >> packages.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> About dependency problem, when you say
"As far as I see
> this
> >> has
> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> great
> >> >> >>> >> >> disadvantage that the Java API would
force Scala as a
> >> dependency
> >> >> onto
> >> >> >>> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> >> java users.", would you please give
a concrete example
> causing
> >> >> >>> critical
> >> >> >>> >> >> issues?
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Best,
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Nan
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:19 AM, YiZhi
Liu <
> >> javelinjs@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> If we build the Java API from the
very beginning, i.e. the
> >> JNI
> >> >> part,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> we have to rewrite the codes for
training, predict,
> >> inferShape,
> >> >> etc.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> It would be too heavy to maintain
a totally new front
> >> language.
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> As far as I see, I don't think Scala
library dependency
> would
> >> >> be a
> >> >> >>> big
> >> >> >>> >> >>> problem in most cases, unless we
are going to use it in
> >> embedded
> >> >> >>> >> >>> devices. Could you illustrate some
use-cases where you
> cannot
> >> >> >>> involve
> >> >> >>> >> >>> Scala dependencies?
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> 2017-08-16 22:13 GMT+08:00 Joern
Kottmann <
> >> kottmann@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > Hello,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > the approach which is taken
by Spark is described here
> [1].
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > As far as I see this has the
great disadvantage that the
> >> Java
> >> >> API
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > would force Scala as a dependency
onto the java users.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > For a library it is always
a great advantage if it
> doesn't
> >> >> have
> >> >> >>> many
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > dependencies, or zero dependencies.
In our case it
> could be
> >> >> quite
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > realistic to have a thin wrapper
around the C API
> without
> >> >> needing
> >> >> >>> any
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > other dependencies (or only
dependencies which can't be
> >> >> avoided).
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > The JNI layer could easily
be shared between the Java
> and
> >> >> Scala
> >> >> >>> API.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > As far as I understand is the
JNI layer in the Scala API
> >> >> anyway
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > private and a change to it
wouldn't require that the
> public
> >> >> part
> >> >> >>> of
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > the Scala API is changed.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > What do you think?
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > Jörn
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> confluence/display/SPARK/Java+
> >> >> >>> >> API+Internals
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:39
PM, YiZhi Liu <
> >> >> javelinjs@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> Hi Joern,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> I suggest to build Java
API as a wrapper of Scala API,
> >> re-use
> >> >> >>> most
> >> >> >>> >> of
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> the procedures. Referring
to the Java API in Apache
> Spark.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2017-08-16 18:21 GMT+08:00
Joern Kottmann <
> >> joern@apache.org
> >> >> >:
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Hello all,
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> I would like to propose
the addition of a Java API to
> >> MXNet.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> There has been some
previous work done for the Scala
> API,
> >> >> and it
> >> >> >>> >> makes
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> sense to at least share
the JNI layer between the two.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> The Java  API probably
should be aligned with the
> Python
> >> API
> >> >> >>> (and
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> others which exist
already) with a few changes to give
> >> it a
> >> >> >>> native
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Java feel.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> As far as I understand
there are multiple people
> >> interested
> >> >> to
> >> >> >>> >> work on
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> this and it would be
good to maybe come up with a
> written
> >> >> >>> proposal
> >> >> >>> >> on
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> how things should be.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> My motivation is to
get a Java API which can be used
> by
> >> >> Apache
> >> >> >>> >> OpenNLP
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> to solve various NLP
tasks using Deep Learning based
> >> >> approaches
> >> >> >>> >> and I
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> am also interested
to work on MXNet.
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Jörn
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> --
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> Yizhi Liu
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> DMLC member
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> Technical Manager
> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> Qihoo 360 Inc, Shanghai,
China
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >>> --
> >> >> >>> >> >>> Yizhi Liu
> >> >> >>> >> >>> DMLC member
> >> >> >>> >> >>> Technical Manager
> >> >> >>> >> >>> Qihoo 360 Inc, Shanghai, China
> >> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> --
> >> >> >>> >> Yizhi Liu
> >> >> >>> >> DMLC member
> >> >> >>> >> Technical Manager
> >> >> >>> >> Qihoo 360 Inc, Shanghai, China
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> --
> >> >> >>> Yizhi Liu
> >> >> >>> DMLC member
> >> >> >>> Technical Manager
> >> >> >>> Qihoo 360 Inc, Shanghai, China
> >> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Yizhi Liu
> >> >> DMLC member
> >> >> Technical Manager
> >> >> Qihoo 360 Inc, Shanghai, China
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Yizhi Liu
> >> DMLC member
> >> Technical Manager
> >> Qihoo 360 Inc, Shanghai, China
> >>
>

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