Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan client/server architecture based on gRPC

So you assume the two are separate, Emmanuel. So do I. But in the current PoC the user data model is directly referenced by the service model interface (KeyMsg and ValueMsg are oneofs listing all possible user application types???). I was assuming this hard dependency was there just to make things simple for the scope of the PoC. But let's not make this too simple because it will stop being useful. My expectation is to see a generic yet fully typed 'cache service' interface that does not depend on the key and value types that come from userland, using maybe 'google.protobuf.Any' or our own 'WrappedMessage' type instead. I'm not sure what to believe now because discussing my hopes and assumptions on the gRPC topic on zulip I think I understood the opposite is desired. Vittorio, please comment on this.

I'm still hoping we want to keep the service interface generic and separated from the user model. And if we do it, would you expect to be able to marshall the service call using gRPC lib and at the same time be able to marshall the user model using whatever other library? Would be nice but that seems to be a no-no with gRPC, or I did not search deep enough. I only looked at the java implementation anyway. It seems to be forcing you to go with protoc generated code and protobuf-java.jar all the way, for marshalling both the service and its arguments. And this goes infinitely deeper. If a service argument of type A has a nested field of type B and the marshaller for A is generated with protobuf-java then so is B. Using oneofs or type 'Any' still do not save you from this. The only escape is to pretend the user payload is of type 'bytes'. At that point you are left to do your marshaling to and from bytes yourself. And you are also left with the question, what the heck is the contents of that byte array next time you unmarshall it, which is currently answered by WrappedMessage.

So the more I look at gRPC it seems elegant for most purposes but lacking for ours. And again, as with protocol buffers, the wire protocol and the IDL are really nice. It is the implementation that is lacking, IMHO. I think to be really on the same page we should first make a clear statement of what we intend to achieve here in a bit more detail. Also, since this is not a clean slate effort, we should think right from the start what are the expected interactions with existing code base, like what are we willing to sacrifice. Somebody mention hot rod please! Adrian On 05/29/2018 07:20 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: Right. Here we are talking about a gRPC representation of the client server interactions. Not the data schema stored in ISPN. In that model, the API is compiled by us and handed over as a package. On 29 May 2018, at 15:51, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: On 29 May 2018 at 13:45, Vittorio Rigamonti <vrigamon(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Thanks Adrian, > > of course there's a marshalling work under the cover and that is > reflected into the generated code (specially the accessor methods generated > from the oneof clause). > > My opinion is that on the client side this could be accepted, as long as > the API are well defined and documented: application developer can build an > adhoc decorator on the top if needed. The alternative to this is to develop > a protostream equivalent for each supported language and it doesn't seem > really feasible to me. > ​This might indeed be reasonable for some developers, some languages. Just please make sure it's not the only option, as many other developers will not expect to need a compiler at hand in various stages of the application lifecycle. For example when deploying a JPA model into an appserver, or just booting Hibernate in JavaSE as well, there is a strong expectation that we'll be able - at runtime - to inspect the listed Java POJOs via reflection and automatically generate whatever Infinispan will need. Perhaps a key differentiator is between invoking Infinispan APIs (RPC) vs defining the object models and related CODECs for keys, values, streams and query results? It might get a bit more fuzzy to differentiate them for custom functions but I guess we can draw a line somewhere. Thanks, Sanne > > On the server side (java only) the situation is different: protobuf is > optimized for streaming not for storing so probably a Protostream layer is > needed. > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> Hi Vittorio, >> thanks for exploring gRPC. It seems like a very elegant solution for >> exposing services. I'll have a look at your PoC soon. >> >> I feel there are some remarks that need to be made regarding gRPC. gRPC >> is just some nice cheesy topping on top of protobuf. Google's >> implementation of protobuf, to be more precise. >> It does not need handwritten marshallers, but the 'No need for >> marshaller' does not accurately describe it. Marshallers are needed and are >> generated under the cover by the library and so are the data objects and >> you are unfortunately forced to use them. That's both the good news and the >> bad news:) The whole thing looks very promising and friendly for many uses >> cases, especially for demos and PoCs :))). Nobody wants to write those >> marshallers. But it starts to become a nuisance if you want to use your own >> data objects. >> There is also the ugliness and excessive memory footprint of the >> generated code, which is the reason Infinispan did not adopt the >> protobuf-java library although it did adopt protobuf as an encoding format. >> The Protostream library was created as an alternative implementation to >> solve the aforementioned problems with the generated code. It solves this >> by letting the user provide their own data objects. And for the marshallers >> it gives you two options: a) write the marshaller yourself (hated), b) >> annotated your data objects and the marshaller gets generated (loved). >> Protostream does not currently support service definitions right now but >> this is something I started to investigate recently after Galder asked me >> if I think it's doable. I think I'll only find out after I do it:) >> >> Adrian >> >> >> On 05/28/2018 04:15 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote: >> >> Hi Infinispan developers, >> >> I'm working on a solution for developers who need to access Infinispan >> services through different programming languages. >> >> The focus is not on developing a full featured client, but rather >> discover the value and the limits of this approach. >> >> - is it possible to automatically generate useful clients in different >> languages? >> - can that clients interoperate on the same cache with the same data >> types? >> >> I came out with a small prototype that I would like to submit to you and >> on which I would like to gather your impressions. >> >> You can found the project here [1]: is a gRPC-based client/server >> architecture for Infinispan based on and EmbeddedCache, with very few >> features exposed atm. >> >> Currently the project is nothing more than a poc with the following >> interesting features: >> >> - client can be generated in all the grpc supported language: java, go, >> c++ examples are provided; >> - the interface is full typed. No need for marshaller and clients build >> in different language can cooperate on the same cache; >> >> The second item is my preferred one beacuse it frees the developer from >> data marshalling. >> >> What do you think about? >> Sounds interesting? >> Can you see any flaw? >> >> There's also a list of issues for the future [2], basically I would like >> to investigate these questions: >> How far this architecture can go? >> Topology, events, queries... how many of the Infinispan features can be >> fit in a grpc architecture? >> >> Thank you >> Vittorio >> >> [1] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc >> [2] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues >> >> -- >> >> Vittorio Rigamonti >> >> Senior Software Engineer >> >> Red Hat >> >> <https://www.redhat.com> >> >> Milan, Italy >> >> vrigamon(a)redhat.com >> >> irc: rigazilla >> <https://red.ht/sig> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing listinfinispan-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> >> >> > > > -- > > Vittorio Rigamonti > > Senior Software Engineer > > Red Hat > > <https://www.redhat.com> > > Milan, Italy > > vrigamon(a)redhat.com > > irc: rigazilla > <https://red.ht/sig> > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing listinfinispan-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev