4:02 p.m.
Hi guys,
when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces were put into
infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these between remote
clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that reusing this as-is
impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the lambdas in a
language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way to share
functions between client and a server but that will most likely result
in an interface accepting something else than Function<ReadWriteEntry,
R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces.
Therefore I suggest moving org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to
infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional
You might say that the server-side code would use the interfaces, but
once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or core-api) -
commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client will in
future register a new function on the server, the user code should
depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not have to).
If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add
SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and found out that
SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for good).
Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I have missed.
Radim
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
8:27 a.m.
Sounds good to me.
Remember that functional API is marked as experimental, so it's fine to do things like
this.
Cheers,
--
Galder Zamarreño
Infinispan, Red Hat
On 9 Jun 2017, at 23:02, Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Hi guys,
when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces were put into
infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these between remote
clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that reusing this as-is
impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the lambdas in a
language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way to share
functions between client and a server but that will most likely result
in an interface accepting something else than Function<ReadWriteEntry,
R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces.
Therefore I suggest moving org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to
infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional
You might say that the server-side code would use the interfaces, but
once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or core-api) -
commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client will in
future register a new function on the server, the user code should
depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not have to).
If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add
SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and found out that
SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for good).
Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I have missed.
Radim
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
9:05 a.m.
+1
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces were put into
infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these between remote
clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that reusing this as-is
impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the lambdas in a
language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way to share
functions between client and a server but that will most likely result
in an interface accepting something else than Function<ReadWriteEntry,
R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces.
Therefore I suggest moving org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to
infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional
You might say that the server-side code would use the interfaces, but
once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or core-api) -
commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client will in
future register a new function on the server, the user code should
depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not have to).
If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add
SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and found out that
SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for good).
Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I have missed.
Radim
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
9:52 a.m.
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:56 AM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces were put into
infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these between remote
clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that reusing this as-is
impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the lambdas in a
language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way to share
functions between client and a server but that will most likely result
in an interface accepting something else than Function<ReadWriteEntry,
R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces.
Therefore I suggest moving org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to
infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional
You might say that the server-side code would use the interfaces, but
once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or core-api) -
commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client will in
future register a new function on the server, the user code should
depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not have to).
If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add
SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and found out that
SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for good).
We could move these into commons in a major version if we need to as well.
I never thought about using them in the client code as we never planned on
supporting serialized lambdas there, but if it makes other things easier I
am for it.
Also there is nothing stopping us from having these in commons right now,
there is nothing special about the interfaces, they can just be copied over.
Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I have missed.
Radim
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
2:44 a.m.
On 06/12/2017 04:52 PM, William Burns wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:56 AM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com
<mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>> wrote:
Hi guys,
when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces were put into
infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these between remote
clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that reusing this
as-is
impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the lambdas in a
language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way to share
functions between client and a server but that will most likely result
in an interface accepting something else than Function<ReadWriteEntry,
R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces.
Therefore I suggest moving org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to
infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional
You might say that the server-side code would use the interfaces, but
once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or core-api) -
commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client will in
future register a new function on the server, the user code should
depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not have to).
If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add
SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and found out that
SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for good).
We could move these into commons in a major version if we need to as
well. I never thought about using them in the client code as we never
planned on supporting serialized lambdas there, but if it makes other
things easier I am for it.
Also there is nothing stopping us from having these in commons right
now, there is nothing special about the interfaces, they can just be
copied over.
-1 These can't be simply copied, because two modules cannot share a
package name (org.infinispan.util), therefore we would have to move the
SerializableFunction to org.infinispan.commons.util.function. But as you
say; we can't/don't want to support lambdas in any remote client
operations and therefore these would be superfluous in commons.
We have to think about a pattern for the building-blocks (counters,
locks, multimaps...): in embedded case we want to expose API using
lambdas, in remote client this should be named filter, script or Ickle
query. Obvious solution is having BaseFeature -> EmbeddedFeature,
RemoteFeature that would expose the functional operations symmetrically
but with different API, but it seems to me a bit inelegant.
Note that embedded/remote building blocks will have different
properties/behaviour anyway - e.g. for embedded it could be useful to
execute an action once the 'owning node' crashes (e.g. release a lock)
while it does not make much sense with remote client.
Radim
Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I
have missed.
Radim
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:infinispan-dev@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
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
8:07 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:54 AM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2017 04:52 PM, William Burns wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:56 AM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces were put
into
> infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these between remote
> clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that reusing this
> as-is
> impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the lambdas in a
> language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way to share
> functions between client and a server but that will most likely
result
> in an interface accepting something else than
Function<ReadWriteEntry,
> R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces.
>
> Therefore I suggest moving org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to
> infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional
>
> You might say that the server-side code would use the interfaces, but
> once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or core-api) -
> commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client will in
> future register a new function on the server, the user code should
> depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not have to).
>
> If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add
> SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and found out
that
> SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for good).
>
>
> We could move these into commons in a major version if we need to as
> well. I never thought about using them in the client code as we never
> planned on supporting serialized lambdas there, but if it makes other
> things easier I am for it.
>
> Also there is nothing stopping us from having these in commons right
> now, there is nothing special about the interfaces, they can just be
> copied over.
-1 These can't be simply copied, because two modules cannot share a
package name (org.infinispan.util), therefore we would have to move the
SerializableFunction to org.infinispan.commons.util.function.
I never said they had to be on the same package :-P
But as you
say; we can't/don't want to support lambdas in any remote
client
operations and therefore these would be superfluous in commons.
We have to think about a pattern for the building-blocks (counters,
locks, multimaps...): in embedded case we want to expose API using
lambdas, in remote client this should be named filter, script or Ickle
query. Obvious solution is having BaseFeature -> EmbeddedFeature,
RemoteFeature that would expose the functional operations symmetrically
but with different API, but it seems to me a bit inelegant.
This is always our problem, we never have a solution and then client API
falls behind.
Also even though we wouldn't serialize lambdas with client, doesn't mean we
can't use lambdas with the client. Just means the operation would have
slower performance, since it would be evaluated in the client.
I personally welcome the BaseFeature you mentioned because we need that
asap so that we can create these API while maintaining some type of
semblance between them.
Note that embedded/remote building blocks will have different
properties/behaviour anyway - e.g. for embedded it could be useful to
execute an action once the 'owning node' crashes (e.g. release a lock)
while it does not make much sense with remote client.
Radim
>
> Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I
> have missed.
>
> Radim
>
> --
> Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>>
> JBoss Performance Team
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:
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
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
9:11 a.m.
On 06/13/2017 03:07 PM, William Burns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 3:54 AM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com
<mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 06/12/2017 04:52 PM, William Burns wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:56 AM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com
<mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>
> <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>>> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces
were put into
> infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these
between remote
> clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that
reusing this
> as-is
> impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the
lambdas in a
> language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way
to share
> functions between client and a server but that will most
likely result
> in an interface accepting something else than
Function<ReadWriteEntry,
> R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces.
>
> Therefore I suggest moving
org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to
> infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional
>
> You might say that the server-side code would use the
interfaces, but
> once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or
core-api) -
> commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client
will in
> future register a new function on the server, the user code
should
> depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not
have to).
>
> If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add
> SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and
found out that
> SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for
good).
>
>
> We could move these into commons in a major version if we need to as
> well. I never thought about using them in the client code as we
never
> planned on supporting serialized lambdas there, but if it makes
other
> things easier I am for it.
>
> Also there is nothing stopping us from having these in commons right
> now, there is nothing special about the interfaces, they can just be
> copied over.
-1 These can't be simply copied, because two modules cannot share a
package name (org.infinispan.util), therefore we would have to
move the
SerializableFunction to org.infinispan.commons.util.function.
I never said they had to be on the same package :-P
But as you
say; we can't/don't want to support lambdas in any remote client
operations and therefore these would be superfluous in commons.
We have to think about a pattern for the building-blocks (counters,
locks, multimaps...): in embedded case we want to expose API using
lambdas, in remote client this should be named filter, script or Ickle
query. Obvious solution is having BaseFeature -> EmbeddedFeature,
RemoteFeature that would expose the functional operations
symmetrically
but with different API, but it seems to me a bit inelegant.
This is always our problem, we never have a solution and then client
API falls behind.
Speaking about clients falling behind, do we have the remote counters
somewhere on the roadmap? I think that OGM's need of sequences was one
of the primary motivations, but OGM is now focusing more on the Hot Rod
integration.
Also even though we wouldn't serialize lambdas with client, doesn't
mean we can't use lambdas with the client. Just means the operation
would have slower performance, since it would be evaluated in the client.
That defies the point completely. I wouldn't trick the user into
thinking that the operation happens in place unless we have a plan to
fix that **soon**.
I personally welcome the BaseFeature you mentioned because we need
that asap so that we can create these API while maintaining some type
of semblance between them.
Note that embedded/remote building blocks will have different
properties/behaviour anyway - e.g. for embedded it could be useful to
execute an action once the 'owning node' crashes (e.g. release a lock)
while it does not make much sense with remote client.
Radim
>
> Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I
> have missed.
>
> Radim
>
> --
> Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>
<mailto:rvansa@redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>>>
> JBoss Performance Team
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:infinispan-dev@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
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
12:08 p.m.
+1
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces were put into
infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these between remote
clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that reusing this as-is
impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the lambdas in a
language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way to share
functions between client and a server but that will most likely result
in an interface accepting something else than Function<ReadWriteEntry,
R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces.
Therefore I suggest moving org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to
infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional
You might say that the server-side code would use the interfaces, but
once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or core-api) -
commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client will in
future register a new function on the server, the user code should
depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not have to).
If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add
SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and found out that
SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for good).
Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I have missed.
Radim
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://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>
2749
days inactive
2753
days old
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Dan Berindei -
Galder Zamarreño -
Radim Vansa -
Vittorio Rigamonti -
William Burns