[infinispan-dev] Stream encoding of Flags and future compatibility

[Sanne Grinovero]

On 16 May 2012 11:24, Galder Zamarreño <galder at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne at infinispan.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 11 May 2012 16:37, Galder Zamarreño <galder at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Quickly tried this and caused no issues:
>>>>>> https://github.com/galderz/infinispan/commit/7718926e5a4a6763506250362d7bd5cbdccd2931
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks good! I'm sure this doesn't solve all future migration problems,
>>>>> but if we could keep this kind of tricks around it should improve
>>>>> odds.
>>>>> IMHO, this is a kind of sensitivity that we should apply across all
>>>>> areas (not just flags).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks interesting, but then you have the opposite problem: not all new
>>>> flags can be ignored, so you need a way to specify that a new flag is
>>>> "required". E.g. if we had just added a ZERO_LOCK_ACQUISITION_TIMEOUT
>>>> flag then the client would be expecting spurious failures, but not
>>>> extra long delays.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, I disagree. If you're adding a new flag, say in 5.2, and you expect a node that runs 5.0 to deal with it properly, really, what you need to be doing is implementing that flag in 5.0.
>>>
>>
>> Well, 5.0 is already out there, so modifying it is not an option.
>
> You can always release a 5.0.x :), and I'm pretty sure we might have to do some micro releases to make rolling upgrades work.
>
>> What we can do is ensure that the clients see the incompatibility in
>> their testing environment and don't use two versions in production
>> without being aware of the problem.
>>
>>> We want:
>>> - if an old client encounters a new/unknown marshalled value, to not blow up and log a WARN.
>>> - if an old client is expected to react to a to a new/unknown marshalled value in the way new versions deal with it, it'll need to implement it.
>>>
>>> We don't want:
>>> - old client to 'blow up in flames' when they encounter new/unknown options, since this causes problems with potential rolling upgrades.
>>>
>>
>> I think there are situations where two versions really are
>> incompatible and we really should "blow up in flames".
>
> Any blowing up in flames would stop rolling upgrades from working, so find me a real example of this first and try to understand how rolling upgrade would work in that scenario...
>
>> I'm not saying that's justified in all cases or even in the majority
>> of cases, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to be 0% either.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> On a totally different page, why are we serializing Flags one-by-one ?
>>>>> We mostly need to serialize EnumSets right?
>>>>> An EnumSet can be encoded by using the bits of a couple of bytes.
>>>>> Three bytes looks like enough for all our needs.. we could even be
>>>>> clever and reserve a special Externalizer-ID for the empty set, to
>>>>> avoid 3 bytes where none are needed.
>>>>> While currently we need an integer (4 bytes) to encode the header for
>>>>> "EnumSet", plus (4 bytes header + 1 byte value) * each flag -> a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RiverMarshaller already has an optimization for the empty set:
>>>> https://github.com/dmlloyd/jboss-marshalling/blob/master/river/src/main/java/org/jboss/marshalling/river/RiverMarshaller.java#L613
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure why it doesn't encode each element as a bit, it might be
>>>> to keep wire compatibility when the order of values in an enum
>>>> changes.
>>>
>>> David?
>>>
>>>> However, because there is only one EnumSet for all Enum types, a
>>>> hypothetical EnumSetExternalizer also needs to write the name of the
>>>> enum class - if we wanted to serialize EnumSet<Flag> in 2 bytes then
>>>> we'd need to make the transformation in ReplicableCommandExternalizer.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. I think we should do what Sanne suggests but manually in the Flag.Externalizer class, since that's tied to the Flag type.
>>>
>>> Within it, we can replicate what an enum set does for marshalling. We already have such code in the Hot Rod server/client (that's how we handle flags there - completely forgot about it when I wrote Flag.Externalizer), so shouldn't be a biggie.
>>>
>>
>> The call stack looks like this: ReplicableCommandExternalizer ->
>> EnumSet externalizer (in RiverMarshaller) -> Flag.Externalizer.
>> You can't change how the EnumSet is serialized in Flag.Externalizer,
>> you have to modify either the EnumSet externalizer (e.g. by writing a
>> new FlagSet class) or ReplicableCommandExternalizer.
>
> Writing a new FlagSet class is my fav. Easy to do and easy to resgister in the ext table.

+1
@Dan I had some related comments on
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2044 .. let's continue discussion
of minor details there?

>
>>
>> The HotRod flags are serialized directly in Codec10.writeHeader, which
>> is the equivalent of ReplicableCommandExternalizer.writeCommandHeader.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
> --
> Galder Zamarreño
> Sr. Software Engineer
> Infinispan, JBoss Cache
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev