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 <https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc> [2] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues <https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues> -- Vittorio Rigamonti Senior Software Engineer Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> Milan, Italy vrigamon(a)redhat.com <mailto:vrigamon@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

Hi all, @Vittorio, thanks a lot for working on this! Let me explain some of the background behind this effort so that we're all on the same page: The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is the ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to implement all the different features available in Java client and port them to Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, not all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations on which to build. One thing I mentioned to Vittorio is that he should investigate what the performance impact of using gRPC is. This is crucial to decide whether to take this forward or not. This should really have been done by now so that other devs are aware of the cost in terms of latency and memory consumption. As you can see from the first comment, there are already concerns with its memory consumption. So, this needs to be done ASAP so that we're aware of the consequences right away.

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

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 >>> >>> Milan, Italy >>> vrigamon(a)redhat.com >>> >>> irc: rigazilla >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > Milan, Italy > vrigamon(a)redhat.com > > irc: rigazilla > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

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

The oneof and WrappedMessage solve the same problem but in a different way. Oneof has the nasty effect that in ties the service model to the user data model.

Even if it seems like just one more line of code to add when a new user type is introduced, it is one line of code in the wrong place because you'll have to re-generate the service. IE user run protoc again on OUR IDLs. Should a user do that? This coupling between the infinispan's service model and the user's data model bothers me. WrappedMessage is just a wrapper around an array of bytes + information regarding what message type or what scalar type is in there. Something very similar to a VARIANT [1]. The reason it is needed is explained here [2]. You are correct, this is not a gRPC limitation, it is a by-design protobuf protocol limitation, that was very thoughtfully introduced to reduce wire level bandwitdth for the common case where types are static. Unfortunately it leaves generic/dynamic types in mid-air. But it is fairly easy to solve, as you can see with WrappedMessage. At the time I introduced WrappedMessage we were using protobuf 2. protobuf 3 introduces type Any, which solves the issue in a similar way with WrappedMessage. The difference is Any seems to have been created to wrap either a plain byte[] or a message type that has been marshalled to a byte[]. No support for scalars in sight. Can we solve that? Sure, put a WrappedMessage inside that byte[] :)))) That is the reason I did not jump immediately at using Any and stayed with WrappedMessage. Can a 150 lines PoC be a proposal for the ISPN object model? No, but we need to explore the pain points of gRPC and protobuf that are relevant to our usage, and this thing with genericly typed services is one of them. I think we already have a good solution in sight, before giving up and going with byte[] for key and value as it was suggested earlier here. I can make a PR to the grpc PoC to show it by the end of the week. Adrian [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_type [2] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/ techniques#streaming On 05/30/2018 11:34 AM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > 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. > Yep that was my design choice. Well my first goal was to keep the framework language independent: to reach that I tried to define in grpc/protobuf as much as possible (that's why I didn't use the Any clause). Then I realized that with very little effort I could design a framework that works only with user data from the user side to the cache storage and I'd liked to investigate this, manly for two reasons: - from the user point of view I like the idea that I can found my objects types in the cache - the embeddedCache<object,object> is transparently exposed but this is my 150 lines of code grpc server prototype, not a proposal for the ISPN object model. However it's ok to use it as starting point for a wider discussion > > 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. > And indeed the "oneof" clause in my message definition solves the same problem solved by the WrappedMessage message: what I have to do with these bytes? Actually I'm not sure this is a gRPC limitation: if I receive a stream of bytes I also need some info on what I have to reconstruct.... I'm just guessing > > 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 > > > -- 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

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 list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me." No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new supported language. Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with Google's protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can continue using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or without gRPC.

Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, but we can add support for that with little effort. The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this thread. Adrian On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti 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. 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>

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> wrote: Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me." No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new supported language. Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with Google's protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can continue using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or without gRPC. Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, but we can add support for that with little effort. The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this thread. ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said: > The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is the ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to implement all the different features available in Java client and port them to Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, not all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations on which to build. To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get different features in is because each client implements its own network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations (between byte[] and whatever the client expects). IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer right (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster failover...etc. From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode. But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our issues, the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO. Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot Rod operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more work. Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you start supporting streams based commands. gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. I don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us. If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on this). Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are more important. Hope this clarifies better my POV. Cheers Adrian On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti 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. > > 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 <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> 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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> >> >> irc: rigazilla >> >> <https://red.ht/sig> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> <mailto:infinispan-dev@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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> > > irc: rigazilla > > <https://red.ht/sig> _______________________________________________ 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

On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote: > Thanks for clarifying this Galder. > Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this > experiment. > > What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we strive > for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an interesting > approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate > their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not > already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a > different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one > from google. > > I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on > the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of > what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based service > definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type > transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that > comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing > everything down to a byte[]. I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for correct hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key and apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the storage format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?). Radim > Adrian > > On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote: >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The >> alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for >> each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me." >> >> No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to >> re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new >> supported language. >> Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with Google's >> protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can continue >> using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or without gRPC. >> Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, but >> we can add support for that with little effort. >> >> The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod >> invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of >> implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I >> wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this thread. >> >> >> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied >> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said: >> >>>  The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is the >> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language >> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to implement >> all the different features available in Java client and port them to >> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to >> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, not >> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations >> on which to build. >> >> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get >> different features in is because each client implements its own >> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations >> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects). >> >> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer right >> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and >> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient >> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster >> failover...etc. >> >> From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client >> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been >> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo >> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode. >> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our issues, >> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO. >> >> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot Rod >> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more work. >> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you >> start supporting streams based commands. >> >> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and >> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. I >> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us. >> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility >> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on this). >> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are >> more important. >> >> Hope this clarifies better my POV. >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Adrian >> >> >> On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti 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. >>> >>> 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 <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> 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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> >>>> >>>> irc: rigazilla >>>> >>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> <mailto:infinispan-dev@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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> >>> >>> irc: rigazilla >>> >>> <https://red.ht/sig> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

On 30 May 2018 at 13:26, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it > has to compute it itself. > The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be > different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could be > done on the server, just a thought. Unless we want to explore some form of hybrid gRPC which benefits from Hot Rod intelligence level 3?

In which case the client will need to compute the hash before it can hint the network layer were to connect to. Thanks, Sanne > On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: >> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote: >>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder. >>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this >>> experiment. >>> >>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we strive >>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an interesting >>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate >>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not >>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a >>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one >>> from google. >>> >>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on >>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of >>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based service >>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type >>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that >>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing >>> everything down to a byte[]. >> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for correct >> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key and >> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the storage >> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?). >> >> Radim >> >>> Adrian >>> >>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The >>>> alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for >>>> each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me." >>>> >>>> No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to >>>> re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new >>>> supported language. >>>> Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with Google's >>>> protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can continue >>>> using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or without gRPC. >>>> Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, but >>>> we can add support for that with little effort. >>>> >>>> The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod >>>> invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of >>>> implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I >>>> wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this thread. >>>> >>>> >>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied >>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said: >>>> >>>>> The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is the >>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language >>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to implement >>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them to >>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to >>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, not >>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations >>>> on which to build. >>>> >>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get >>>> different features in is because each client implements its own >>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations >>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects). >>>> >>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer right >>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and >>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient >>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster >>>> failover...etc. >>>> >>>> From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client >>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been >>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo >>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode. >>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our issues, >>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO. >>>> >>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot Rod >>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more work. >>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you >>>> start supporting streams based commands. >>>> >>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and >>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. I >>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us. >>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility >>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on this). >>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are >>>> more important. >>>> >>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Adrian >>>> >>>> >>>> On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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 <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> 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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> irc: rigazilla >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> <mailto:infinispan-dev@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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>> irc: rigazilla >>>>> >>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:00 PM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 05/30/2018 02:53 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > > On 30 May 2018 at 13:26, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it > >> has to compute it itself. > >> The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be > >> different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could be > >> done on the server, just a thought. > > Unless we want to explore some form of hybrid gRPC which benefits from > > Hot Rod intelligence level 3? > > Since Tristan said that gRPC is viable only if the performance is > comparable - I concluded that this involves the smart routing. I was > hoping that gRPC networking layer would provide some hook to specify the > destination. It does, via SubchannelPicker implementations. It requires key to be sent as HTTP header down the stack so that the SubchannelPicker can extract it. SubchannelPicker impl can then apply hash on it and decide based on available channels. > An alternative would be a proxy hosted on the same node > that would do the routing. > If we're to replace Hot Rod I was expecting the (generated) gRPC client > to be extensible enough to allow us add client-side features (like near > cache, maybe listeners would need client-side code too) but saving us > most of the hassle with networking and parsing, while providing basic > client in languages we don't embrace without additional cost. > > R. > > > > > In which case the client will need to compute the hash before it can > > hint the network layer were to connect to. > > > > Thanks, > > Sanne > > > >> On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: > >>> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote: > >>>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder. > >>>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this > >>>> experiment. > >>>> > >>>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we strive > >>>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an > interesting > >>>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate > >>>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not > >>>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a > >>>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one > >>>> from google. > >>>> > >>>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on > >>>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of > >>>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based service > >>>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type > >>>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that > >>>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing > >>>> everything down to a byte[]. > >>> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for > correct > >>> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key > and > >>> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the storage > >>> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?). > >>> > >>> Radim > >>> > >>>> Adrian > >>>> > >>>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com > >>>>> <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The > >>>>> alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for > >>>>> each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible > to me." > >>>>> > >>>>> No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to > >>>>> re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new > >>>>> supported language. > >>>>> Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with > Google's > >>>>> protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can > continue > >>>>> using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or > without gRPC. > >>>>> Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, > but > >>>>> we can add support for that with little effort. > >>>>> > >>>>> The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod > >>>>> invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of > >>>>> implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I > >>>>> wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this > thread. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied > >>>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said: > >>>>> > >>>>>> The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is > the > >>>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language > >>>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to > implement > >>>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them to > >>>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to > >>>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, > not > >>>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations > >>>>> on which to build. > >>>>> > >>>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get > >>>>> different features in is because each client implements its own > >>>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations > >>>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects). > >>>>> > >>>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer > right > >>>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and > >>>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient > >>>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster > >>>>> failover...etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client > >>>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been > >>>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo > >>>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode. > >>>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our issues, > >>>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO. > >>>>> > >>>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot > Rod > >>>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more work. > >>>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you > >>>>> start supporting streams based commands. > >>>>> > >>>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and > >>>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. > I > >>>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us. > >>>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility > >>>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on > this). > >>>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are > >>>>> more important. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Adrian > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> 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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> irc: rigazilla > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list > >>>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >>>>>>> <mailto:infinispan-dev@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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> irc: rigazilla > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > > > -- > Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com&gt; > JBoss Performance Team > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Manik and I were discussing this last week and came to the conclusion

Thanks Manik! Great to hear some feedback from you, especially as you have way more experience with gRPC. Beyond helping to develop (and maintain!) clients for a wider range of programming languages - it would also help to provide both a "traditional" and a non-blocking client for each such language, while having to maintain just an async server implementation. Sanne On 6 June 2018 at 07:13, Manik Surtani <manik(a)infinispan.org&gt; wrote: > Hello everyone! (Wow, it's been a while since I dropped by and said hello... > ) > > Super-interesting discussion. > > Adrian: "What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we > strive for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an > interesting approach that would make it possible for a third party to > generate their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not > already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a different > grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one from google." > > This is spot-on, and where I see value in gRPC being incorporated into > Infinispan: making use of open(-ish) standards of RPC communication and > applying that to how we do client/server. Good discussion on handling > payload types in the interface definition. I've made use of some of the > ideas discussed here when creating a proto-defined IDL to look up ... more > serialized proto definitions for given types! Keen to see what your PoC > looks like. > > - M > > > On Wed, 30 May 2018 at 08:19 Galder Zamarreno <galder(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:00 PM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> On 05/30/2018 02:53 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >>> > On 30 May 2018 at 13:26, Adrian Nistor <anistor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >> Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it >>> >> has to compute it itself. >>> >> The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be >>> >> different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could >>> >> be >>> >> done on the server, just a thought. >>> > Unless we want to explore some form of hybrid gRPC which benefits from >>> > Hot Rod intelligence level 3? >>> >>> Since Tristan said that gRPC is viable only if the performance is >>> comparable - I concluded that this involves the smart routing. I was >>> hoping that gRPC networking layer would provide some hook to specify the >>> destination. >> >> >> It does, via SubchannelPicker implementations. It requires key to be sent >> as HTTP header down the stack so that the SubchannelPicker can extract it. >> >> SubchannelPicker impl can then apply hash on it and decide based on >> available channels. >> >>> >>> An alternative would be a proxy hosted on the same node >>> that would do the routing. >>> >>> >>> If we're to replace Hot Rod I was expecting the (generated) gRPC client >>> to be extensible enough to allow us add client-side features (like near >>> cache, maybe listeners would need client-side code too) but saving us >>> most of the hassle with networking and parsing, while providing basic >>> client in languages we don't embrace without additional cost. >>> >>> R. >>> >>> > >>> > In which case the client will need to compute the hash before it can >>> > hint the network layer were to connect to. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Sanne >>> > >>> >> On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: >>> >>> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder. >>> >>>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this >>> >>>> experiment. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we >>> >>>> strive >>> >>>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an >>> >>>> interesting >>> >>>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate >>> >>>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not >>> >>>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a >>> >>>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one >>> >>>> from google. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on >>> >>>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of >>> >>>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based >>> >>>> service >>> >>>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type >>> >>>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that >>> >>>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing >>> >>>> everything down to a byte[]. >>> >>> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for >>> >>> correct >>> >>> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key >>> >>> and >>> >>> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the >>> >>> storage >>> >>> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?). >>> >>> >>> >>> Radim >>> >>> >>> >>>> Adrian >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote: >>> >>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor < anistor(a)redhat.com >>> >>>>> <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The >>> >>>>> alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent >>> >>>>> for >>> >>>>> each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible >>> >>>>> to me." >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to >>> >>>>> re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new >>> >>>>> supported language. >>> >>>>> Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with >>> >>>>> Google's >>> >>>>> protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can >>> >>>>> continue >>> >>>>> using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or >>> >>>>> without gRPC. >>> >>>>> Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, >>> >>>>> but >>> >>>>> we can add support for that with little effort. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod >>> >>>>> invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of >>> >>>>> implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I >>> >>>>> wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this >>> >>>>> thread. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied >>> >>>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is >>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language >>> >>>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to >>> >>>>> implement >>> >>>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them >>> >>>>> to >>> >>>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to >>> >>>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, >>> >>>>> not >>> >>>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations >>> >>>>> on which to build. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get >>> >>>>> different features in is because each client implements its own >>> >>>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations >>> >>>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects). >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer >>> >>>>> right >>> >>>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and >>> >>>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient >>> >>>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster >>> >>>>> failover...etc. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client >>> >>>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been >>> >>>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo >>> >>>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode. >>> >>>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our >>> >>>>> issues, >>> >>>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot >>> >>>>> Rod >>> >>>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more >>> >>>>> work. >>> >>>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you >>> >>>>> start supporting streams based commands. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and >>> >>>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. >>> >>>>> I >>> >>>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us. >>> >>>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility >>> >>>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on >>> >>>>> this). >>> >>>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are >>> >>>>> more important. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Cheers >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Adrian >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti 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. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 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 <mailto:anistor@redhat.com>> 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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> irc: rigazilla >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> >>>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> >>>>>>> <mailto:infinispan-dev@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 <mailto:vrigamon@redhat.com> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> irc: rigazilla >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> JBoss Performance Team >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 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