stanbol-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antonio David Perez Morales <ape...@zaizi.com>
Subject Re: Camel integration (was : Re: Community bonding period started)
Date Tue, 01 Jul 2014 08:20:29 GMT
Hi all

Continuing with the project, I have managed successfully the integration of
activemq camel component (and also jms) into the Stanbol Camel integration.
This has been a hard task due to the dependencies needed by the component
and also due to the fact that we had to provide an activemq component
configurable through Felix web console.

With this addition, we are in the position to integrate business logic into
Stanbol routes through a message service provided by activemq (jms).

As a first test, I have deployed a route which consumes messages (content)
from an activemq queue, enhance them using the default chain and then write
the result into a file. It's a simple test but it works quite well. In this
case, Stanbol is working in a standalone mode, that is to say, we don't
have to explicitly call Stanbol to enhance content but Stanbol is triggered
based on some external events (a new queue message)

As indicated in the previous mail, I still have some pending things to be
done (because I couldn't do them last week) but in order to go forward with
the project I ask you for some interesting use cases where to apply the new
workflow component in order to give added value to it and also in order to
develop and provide more workflow (camel) components useful for those and
other use cases.

Regards


On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
aperez@zaizi.com> wrote:

> Hi Stanbolers
>
> The GSoC 2014 midterm is here and I want to give you a summary of the work
> already done so far:
>
> - Adapted previous Camel integration PoC done by Florent into Stanbol 1.0
> version.
> - Improved EngineComponent used by Camel to execute Enhancement Engines
> (configured through Stanbol web console as usual) using the engine:// uri
> scheme in routes.
> - Created ChainComponent used by Camel to execute Enhancement Chains using
> the chain:// uri scheme in routes (both Camel components are provided as
> OSGI components, so the uri scheme can be changed through the Stanbol web
> console)
> - Created a custom artifact for Apache Felix Fileinstall in order to be
> able to install routes defined in Camel Spring XML DSL placing a route file
> (with 'route' extension) in the stanbol/fileinstall directory
> - Created a custom archetype to ease the development of bundles containing
> route definitions in Java DSL. The archetype generates a class extending
> 'RouteBuilder' which creates a default Camel direct endpoint used by other
> Stanbol Workflow components to execute the route.
> - Created a first version of Workflow API, which contains different OSGI
> components which allow registering Camel components/routes,
> start/stop/execute routes, add/remove components used in routes, etc.
> - REST endpoint is provided to test the execution of routes using REST
> requests (/flow/{routeId} )
> - Modified the PoC full launcher to use all the new bundles to support the
> workflow feature.
> - Installed JBoss developer studio which comes with Camel support in order
> to create routes in a visual way with the possibility to be exported as
> Spring XML DSL format
>
> Some pending things I will try to do during this week:
> - Improve the web package to create the needed endpoints to query the
> registered routes, registered camel components, etc
> - Improve the web package to remove classes copied from Stanbol jersey
> module used for testing
> - Update README.md files in the repository with all the new information
> - Document the installation and configuration of JBoss developer studio
> for Camel routes creation
> - Create all the JIRA issued related to the work already done
>
>
> For the second part of the project, I would like to read some comments
> about interesting use cases in order to develop the needed Stanbol and
> Camel components to support them.
>
> If you have any comment, please drop some lines in order to discuss the
> new things to be done.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
> aperez@zaizi.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> Continuing with the project, and as part of the refactoring/new
>> architecture I have started to modify some workflow components in order to
>> create a better API and architecture based on OSGI components. As a first
>> step and in order to have the same behavior than the current one (regarding
>> enhancement process), a chain component has been created to simulate the
>> chain behaviour. This new component uses internally the ChainManager and
>> EnhancementJobManager component to perform the business logic. This way, a
>> new protocol 'chain' can be used in the routes deployed in Stanbol. The
>> chains are configured in the same way, using Stanbol admin console.
>>
>> Now, we can combine single engine executions with chains executions in
>> routes deployed in Stanbol using the alternatives described in previous
>> mails and in the issue [1]. Both engines and chains are configured through
>> Stanbol admin console. You can see the refactoring advances in [2] (a
>> branch used for refactoring the current PoC of Workflow in Stanbol 1.0). Of
>> course, the Camel EIP and other Camel components can be used in the
>> deployed routes as well.
>>
>> With the new Camel routes support, we can have a Stanbol running and
>> enhancing content without receiving any HTTP request to start the
>> enhancement process, because the routes can be triggered by external events
>> ocurred in a queue, database, etc. Moreover the semantic lifting process
>> can be splitted and merged with some application steps, so the issue [3]
>> requesting asynchronous call support for enhancement could be solved.
>>
>> Anyway, if some of you have any suggestions for new components to be
>> deployed for the second part of the project, or another kind of suggestion,
>> please drop here some lines to continue with the discussion.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-1348
>> [2]
>> https://github.com/adperezmorales/stanbol-camel-workflow/tree/refactoring
>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-263
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
>> aperez@zaizi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi people
>>>
>>> As part of the GSoC project for the midterm and according to the issue
>>> [1], a custom Apache Felix Fileinstall artifact has been created in order
>>> to deploy Camel routes defined in XML (Spring DSL) placing a file with
>>> .route extension in a configured directory (like stanbol/fileinstall
>>> directory). Moreover since this artifact depends on Fileinstall bundle, the
>>> created launcher has been modified to have that bundle in the OSGI context
>>> by default.
>>>
>>> So, once the current Camel integration POC has been integrated in
>>> Stanbol 1.0 and extended to support the deployment of routes defined by
>>> Java DSL (through bundles) and XML (route files), the next step will be
>>> thinking and redesigning the current architecture trying to avoid the
>>> duplicated code and providing a more extendable and easy to use Workflow
>>> API, because with the current integration only direct routes can be
>>> triggered using REST API which means that the defined routes must be
>>> configured properly using a direct endpoint consumer. Anyway, routes
>>> starting in some other way like timers are triggered directly in the
>>> deployment, so this has to be taken into account for the new API (and REST
>>> API).
>>>
>>> In parallel and for the second part, new Stanbol Camel components will
>>> be developed in order to be used in new routes. So if any of you have use
>>> cases for this involving Stanbol components, please drop some lines here in
>>> order to prioritize the Stanbol Camel components to be developed.
>>>
>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-1348
>>> [2] https://github.com/adperezmorales/stanbol-camel-workflow/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
>>> aperez@zaizi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi stanbolers
>>>>
>>>> As part of the issue [1] , I have created a maven archetype useful to
>>>> generate Camel routes in Java DSL.
>>>> The archetype generates a Java project with all the dependencies and
>>>> one Java class with a method which has to be filled. In this method, Camel
>>>> Java DSL syntax is used to create the route.
>>>> By default and as a first approach, the class will use the route name
>>>> given during the project creation to enable a Camel direct endpoint with
>>>> such name.
>>>> The code of the first archetype version can be found at [2].
>>>>
>>>> The next task will be providing a Felix custom artifact to be able to
>>>> deploy XML-based routes in Stanbol, placing a custom file in the Stanbol
>>>> datafiles directory.
>>>> After that, it will be time to think and redesign the architecture to
>>>> integrate Camel workflows inside Stanbol in a better way, more configurable
>>>> and extendable.
>>>>
>>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-1348
>>>> [2] https://github.com/adperezmorales/stanbol-camel-workflow/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
>>>> aperez@zaizi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> After a hard fight this week, I managed to get it work the Florent's
>>>>> proof of concept code in the Stanbol 1.0 branch [1]
>>>>> The code is uploaded in my github account [3]. As I said in a previous
>>>>> mail, I prefer to do it separately and after the project, uploading the
>>>>> developed code into a Stanbol branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 1.0.0 version has some changes in how the Jersey endpoints are
>>>>> registered and also new classes and packages, so it was not a trivial
task
>>>>> to make work the current proof of concept. Moreover I don't like to simply
>>>>> copy and paste code and make the needed changes. I always want to
>>>>> understand how the things work and how they are developed in order to
be
>>>>> able to change/modify them or develop new code around them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The steps done to achieve it have been the following:
>>>>> - Updated pom files to the Stanbol 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT version
>>>>> - Updated bundle levels in bundlelist package to fit the Stanbol 1.0
>>>>> version levels
>>>>> - Adapted cameljobmanager package code to Stanbol 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> classes and using Java OSGI annotations instead of SCR annotations in
>>>>> Javadoc
>>>>> - Updated flow web package to Stanbol 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT classes and
>>>>> modified needed resources
>>>>> - Added Java OSGI annotations to the route (WeightedChain) instead of
>>>>> SCR annotations in javadoc
>>>>> - Updated launcher to use the 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT packages and needed
>>>>> bundles
>>>>>
>>>>> So now, the http://localhost:8080/flow endpoint will use the only
>>>>> Camel route (defined by WeightedChain) to call all the registered
>>>>> Enhancement Engines (ordered by EnhancementEngine order property).
>>>>> For testing purposes, the /flow/{flowName} has been removed, because
>>>>> all this code needs to be re-designed and re-implemented so I only wanted
>>>>> to make it work to have a first (simple) integration in Stanbol 1.0.
This
>>>>> functionality will be added again to trigger custom routes once the next
>>>>> step (defined below) is developed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The next step [2] will be support to write and configure routes in XML
>>>>> format, putting the file in datafiles in order to be loaded by a Felix
>>>>> custom artifact (as Rupert pointed out in a previous mail) and create
a
>>>>> Maven archetype to create bundles defining routes which will be loaded
>>>>> using the Felix bundle tab. If necessary, as we talked in previous
>>>>> messages, a REST endpoint receiving routes in XML can be developed as
an
>>>>> alternative to the first approach. This is my objective for the midterm.
>>>>>
>>>>> After the midterm, the new Stanbol components for Apache Camel will be
>>>>> developed and also the new architecture for Camel in Stanbol.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments on this and for use cases for Stanbol Camel components are
>>>>> more than welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-1347
>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-1348
>>>>> [3] https://github.com/adperezmorales/stanbol-camel-workflow/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
>>>>> aperez@zaizi.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi people
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already started to work on [1] to integrate current Florent's
>>>>>> code into Stanbol 1.0.
>>>>>> As a first approach, only changing the dependency versions to new
>>>>>> Stanbol 1.0, many issues have arisen:
>>>>>>  - Deprecated use of classes
>>>>>>  - Classes which have changed from package
>>>>>>  - Some classes not necessary now
>>>>>>  - Classes not used which were causing conflicts
>>>>>>  - ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now I'm trying to resolve all these problems to replicate the
same
>>>>>> behavior from 0.9 into 1.0. I will upload the code to a Github repository
>>>>>> in my account (which will be pushed later into a Stanbol branch after
the
>>>>>> project) in order to track the advances.
>>>>>> Once I can resolve all these problems, I will take a look to the
>>>>>> Felix Custom Artifacts poiinted out by Rupert in a previous message
to find
>>>>>> out the best way to deploy (and manage) route configurations (felix
>>>>>> artifacts, watchservice java, rest endpoint to receive xml routes,
etc).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments on this and future tasks are more than welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-1347
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Rafa Haro <rharo@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Rupert, Florent and Antonio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> El 27/05/14 08:51, Rupert Westenthaler escribió:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  As the result of Enhancement Routes is content + metadata I
can not
>>>>>>>> see what you want to "store" in the Entityhub that is about
managing
>>>>>>>> Entities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >  - entityhub: To query/update the entityhub component
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe. If you can come up with a good use case ^^
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >  - contenthub: To develop a new content-hub using chain/engine
>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>> >and solr/elasticsearch/whatever component (solr and
elasticsearch
>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>> >already exist in Camel)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO implementing a new Contenthub like component is outside
the
>>>>>>>> scope
>>>>>>>> of this GSoC project. However If there is already Solr/Elasticsearch
>>>>>>>> component it would be a really useful thing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding this, in my opinion, the use case of an eventual
>>>>>>> integration with a Content hub is probably one of the most clear
for this
>>>>>>> project. I'm not sure if that is what Antonio was trying to explain
but,
>>>>>>> with a single route using as last endpoint Solr or any other
backend
>>>>>>> system, we would be almost cloning the same functionality than
the previous
>>>>>>> ContentHub implementation (Stanbol 0.12). Entities could be dereferenced
>>>>>>> using the EntityHub before storing the content along with the
metadata,
>>>>>>> which is the point of integration of the EntityHub in such use
case. And
>>>>>>> even most interesting, now with the integration of Marmotta contributed
by
>>>>>>> Rupert, it would be possible to use a whole graph for dereferencing,
so
>>>>>>> "simply" routing components like Enhancer->Marmotta->Solr
sounds to me like
>>>>>>> an interesting use case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wdyt?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Rafa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 

------------------------------
This message should be regarded as confidential. If you have received this 
email in error please notify the sender and destroy it immediately. 
Statements of intent shall only become binding when confirmed in hard copy 
by an authorised signatory.

Zaizi Ltd is registered in England and Wales with the registration number 
6440931. The Registered Office is Brook House, 229 Shepherds Bush Road, 
London W6 7AN. 

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