On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Jean-Francois Denise <jdenise(a)redhat.com <mailto:jdenise@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi, in the galleon project, in a context where we would not provision a complete server but just a subset required to run a given configuration, we have identified a need for subsystems to advertise to the galleon tooling some modules in addition to the modules galleon discover by traversing the module dependency tree. The first case is DeploymentProcessor injecting modules into the deployment units (implicit modules). The deployment injected ones are not required to be a dependency of the subsystem module, so galleon has the risk to miss some of them. As an example, in logging subsystem we have the following non optional injected modules : "org.jboss.logging", "org.apache.commons.logging", "org.apache.log4j", "org.slf4j", "org.jboss.logging.jul-to-slf4j-stub" Some of these modules are direct dependencies of logging subsystem, some others are indirect dependencies, others could be not present at all in the module dependency tree (eg: org.jboss.logging.jul-to-slf4j-stub). So we are thinking at solving this issue in 2 possible ways: 1) Mandate that all injected modules become dependencies of the subsystem module at the cost to load some useless modules at runtime. 2) Possibly better, make the subsystem to call RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages (package name being module name) for each injected module. An existing capability or a new one  would have to be created. There is also the case of optional injected module dependencies (eg: ee subsystem org.glassfish.javax.el, org.eclipse.yasson, ...). We need to treat them differently. When one is provisioning a server using galleon he can choose to exclude some packages from the provisioned server. Optional packages can be excluded without making the provisioned state invalid (as opposed to required package that can't be excluded). These optional implicit dependencies are typical usage of this, they are not required by the deployment unit to properly operate. For these, we plan to use RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalOptionalPackages. We can't make them "optional" in JBoss module. When galleon provision a subset of the server we don't include all optional dependencies. This brings the case of provisioning of optional dependencies present in JBOSS module.xml. We have identified multiple kind of optional dependencies. 1) The optional dependencies that are referencing modules only in use when a feature is present in the configuration of the subsystem (eg: jmx subsystem optional dep on org.jboss.remoting-jmx due to <remoting-connector/>, remoting subsystem optional dep on io.undertow.core for <http-connector/>, elytron subsystem optional dep on org.picketbox for <jacc-policy>) In order to have these dependencies to be provisioned with the subsystem, we can attach thanks to RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages the modules to the feature. When the feature is present in the configuration, the module is no more optional but required. 2) The optional dependencies that reference modules that are part of another subsystems and only use if this other subsystem is present (eg: org.jboss.as.jpa optional dep on org.jboss.as.ejb3, org.jboss.as.transactions optional dep on org.jboss.remoting). These ones are simply not taken into account 3)  The optional dependencies that reference modules that are not part of another subsystem (so are not provisioned by another source) but are only meaningful if the other subsystem is present. We call these ones "passive" (eg: org.jboss.as.weld optional dependency on org.jboss.as.weld.ejb|jpa|beanvalidation|webservices|transactions). "passive" are analyzed. If all their dependencies are present, then they are included. Some implicit optional dependencies can fall into this category (eg: org.jboss.jaxrs optional dep on org.jboss.resteasy.resteasy-validator-provider-11). The passive optional dependencies would be advertised with RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalPassiveOptionalPackages(optional dependency package name). So to summarize: - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages for all required implicit modules - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages to associate optional dependencies to a feature - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalOptionalPackages for all optional implicit dependencies that are not passive - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalPassiveOptionalPackages for all optional dependencies (implicit or not) that are passive A good question Alexey raised is whether the capability is the right concept for encapsulating this information. In the end the key point is that the information ends up in the galleon feature-spec. That's the thing that encapsulates the configuration elements and the packages (i.e. fs content) that are needed to provide a feature. It's the feature that needs the package. We generate the galleon feature specs from our management model information. When in WF 13 we hit the first must-implement use case for getting additional package info into a feature spec I kind of arbitrarily picked 'RuntimeCapability' as the place to record that. It was a reasonable enough choice for that one use case but isn't great otherwise. The alternative is to record this data in the ResourceDefinition, which is the primary source of the data that's used in the feature spec generation. The conceptual argument is a capability is all about a named provider of a contract that other elements of the server can rely on; e.g. some MSC Service with a particular value type that will be exposed.  But this additional package stuff isn't really about that contract, it's about other things that will be done that likely are not relevant to other elements of the system. A hint of a design smell would be if we end up creating RuntimeCapability instances for no other reason than to record this additional package information. Something I could see happening with this logging case you mentioned at the start. I don't think ResourceDefinition has this problem.

Is it something that subsystems owner would be ready to put in place to help galleon in this task? It would require a bit of analysis of the dependencies of your modules but the gain could be quite important. Please don't let my point above derail consideration of this question.  Use of ResourceDefinition vs RuntimeCapability is a relatively small detail. Some early experimentation of this has shown a big reduction of the server filesystem footprint (web server + cdi has been reduced from 156MB to 46MB). The runtime memory usage reduction is not that big, but less modules being loaded we have a gain. Thanks for reading. JF _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev> -- Brian Stansberry Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer Red Hat

On 09/11/2018 18:32, Brian Stansberry wrote: > > The passive optional dependencies would be advertised with > RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalPassiveOptionalPackages(optional > dependency package name). > > So to summarize: > > - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages for all required > implicit modules > > - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages to associate optional > dependencies to a feature > > - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalOptionalPackages for all optional > implicit dependencies that are not passive > > - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalPassiveOptionalPackages for all > optional dependencies (implicit or not) that are passive > > A good question Alexey raised is whether the capability is the right concept for encapsulating this information.

> The alternative is to record this data in the ResourceDefinition, which is the primary source of the data that's used in the feature spec generation.

> I don't think ResourceDefinition has this problem. I have introduced artificial capabilities in ee, jaxrs and weld (subsystems that are targeted by the demo) to add additional packages. It seems that it would be common case. So it is actually smelly.

> Is it something that subsystems owner would be ready to put in place to > help galleon in this task? It would require a bit of analysis of the > dependencies of your modules but the gain could be quite important.

The main reason those modules are dependencies of the logging subsystem is because they are not really required for the subsystem itself with the exception of org.jboss.logging. Those module dependencies are added to deployments for convenience. So really they're not required at all unless the user is using one of those logging frameworks and they want the logging subsystem to control the logging output.

This may be somewhat of an edge case because if the user doesn't use, say slf4j, then there is no real reason to include the dependency unless of course another module uses it.

module and just put the library as a resource root to org.slf4j, but that's slightly OT :) On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:34 AM Jean-Francois Denise <jdenise(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > in the galleon project, in a context where we would not provision a > complete server but just a subset required to run a given configuration, > we have identified a need for subsystems to advertise to the galleon > tooling some modules in addition to the modules galleon discover by > traversing the module dependency tree. > > The first case is DeploymentProcessor injecting modules into the > deployment units (implicit modules). > > The deployment injected ones are not required to be a dependency of the > subsystem module, so galleon has the risk to miss some of them. > > As an example, in logging subsystem we have the following non optional > injected modules : > "org.jboss.logging", > "org.apache.commons.logging", > "org.apache.log4j", > "org.slf4j", > "org.jboss.logging.jul-to-slf4j-stub" > > Some of these modules are direct dependencies of logging subsystem, some > others are indirect dependencies, others could be not present at all in > the module dependency tree (eg: org.jboss.logging.jul-to-slf4j-stub). > > So we are thinking at solving this issue in 2 possible ways: > > 1) Mandate that all injected modules become dependencies of the > subsystem module at the cost to load some useless modules at runtime. > > 2) Possibly better, make the subsystem to call > RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages (package name being > module name) for each injected module. An existing capability or a new > one would have to be created. > > There is also the case of optional injected module dependencies (eg: ee > subsystem org.glassfish.javax.el, org.eclipse.yasson, ...). We need to > treat them differently. When one is provisioning a server using galleon > he can choose to exclude some packages from the provisioned server. > Optional packages can be excluded without making the provisioned state > invalid (as opposed to required package that can't be excluded). These > optional implicit dependencies are typical usage of this, they are not > required by the deployment unit to properly operate. > > For these, we plan to use > RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalOptionalPackages. We can't make them > "optional" in JBoss module. When galleon provision a subset of the > server we don't include all optional dependencies. > > This brings the case of provisioning of optional dependencies present in > JBOSS module.xml. > > We have identified multiple kind of optional dependencies. > > 1) The optional dependencies that are referencing modules only in use > when a feature is present in the configuration of the subsystem (eg: jmx > subsystem optional dep on org.jboss.remoting-jmx due to > <remoting-connector/>, remoting subsystem optional dep on > io.undertow.core for <http-connector/>, elytron subsystem optional dep > on org.picketbox for <jacc-policy>) > > In order to have these dependencies to be provisioned with the > subsystem, we can attach thanks to > RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages the modules to the > feature. When the feature is present in the configuration, the module is > no more optional but required. > > 2) The optional dependencies that reference modules that are part of > another subsystems and only use if this other subsystem is present (eg: > org.jboss.as.jpa optional dep on org.jboss.as.ejb3, > org.jboss.as.transactions optional dep on org.jboss.remoting). These > ones are simply not taken into account > > 3) The optional dependencies that reference modules that are not part > of another subsystem (so are not provisioned by another source) but are > only meaningful if the other subsystem is present. We call these ones > "passive" (eg: org.jboss.as.weld optional dependency on > org.jboss.as.weld.ejb|jpa|beanvalidation|webservices|transactions). > "passive" are analyzed. If all their dependencies are present, then they > are included. Some implicit optional dependencies can fall into this > category (eg: org.jboss.jaxrs optional dep on > org.jboss.resteasy.resteasy-validator-provider-11). > > The passive optional dependencies would be advertised with > RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalPassiveOptionalPackages(optional > dependency package name). > > So to summarize: > > - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages for all required > implicit modules > > - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalRequiredPackages to associate optional > dependencies to a feature > > - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalOptionalPackages for all optional > implicit dependencies that are not passive > > - RuntimeCapability.addAdditionalPassiveOptionalPackages for all > optional dependencies (implicit or not) that are passive > > Is it something that subsystems owner would be ready to put in place to > help galleon in this task? It would require a bit of analysis of the > dependencies of your modules but the gain could be quite important. Some > early experimentation of this has shown a big reduction of the server > filesystem footprint (web server + cdi has been reduced from 156MB to > 46MB). The runtime memory usage reduction is not that big, but less > modules being loaded we have a gain. > > Thanks for reading. > > JF > > _______________________________________________ > wildfly-dev mailing list > wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev -- James R. Perkins JBoss by Red Hat _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

Thank-you. On 09/11/2018 19:45, James Perkins wrote: The main reason those modules are dependencies of the logging subsystem is because they are not really required for the subsystem itself with the exception of org.jboss.logging. Those module dependencies are added to deployments for convenience. So really they're not required at all unless the user is using one of those logging frameworks and they want the logging subsystem to control the logging output. There is some logic to attempt to load the module, if it succeeds, then the dependency is added as a required one. Could this be replaced by an optional dependency and no module loading? These modules would have to to be added thanks to addAdditionalOptionalPackages.

This may be somewhat of an edge case because if the user doesn't use, say slf4j, then there is no real reason to include the dependency unless of course another module uses it. I do wonder if we should remove the org.jboss.logging.jul-to-slf4j-stub module and just put the library as a resource root to org.slf4j, but that's slightly OT :) -- James R. Perkins JBoss by Red Hat _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing listwildfly-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev