What transport are you planning on using? REST, or the current binary protocol? Or is this just a wrapper around the existing java client APIs?
If this about creating a new API, I agree with what John is saying that we need reduce the number of APIs we have to do the same thing in java. It seems especially confusing if we end up with different APIs that support distinct features - like being able to create a region on the server with this new API but only being able to invoke a function with the old API. The other thing I think we need to avoid is being able to do things from the client (or gfsh, or xml, ...) that don't have a java API on the server. I'm assuming your getOrCreateRegion region is supposed behave like the gfsh command and update the cluster configuration? +++1 to Wes's suggestion have a public API for executing these gfsh operations. I really think we need to work on having *one* authoritative public API that contains everything that we support on the server. The protocols we support (REST, binary, ...) and the client drivers that use those protocols should just be ways of accessing that API. The Java API on the server right now the closest thing we have to this, but there are things you can do with gfsh and things you can do with the current client that have no java API equivalent. I think we really need to fix that! Also, preferably we won't have to hand code a bunch of stuff in every client driver and protocol whenever we add a new feature. For example if were to add a geode function to invoke each new API we add, that new API would be accessible from REST, gfsh, the java client etc. Later we could add syntatic sugar to make the new API prettier, but if we had a low level API that automatically exposed all new features that would make adding new features much less painful. I do like the idea of adding a reactive API. Supporting JSR-107 might be nice - but that could probably be written just as a wrapper around the current API without too much work. I don't think we should do anything for JSR-107 other than provide a JSR-107 compatible wrapper - if someone wants additional geode specific features they should drop into the existing API. I also like the idea of a smaller client jar and dependencies, but I think there is a huge amount of room for improvement in our existing client just by refactoring the code a bit more and shinking geode-core into a bare minimum. -Dan On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Fred Krone <fkr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > That's great, Wes. I will take a look. Thanks. > > John -- good feedback to consider and I was hoping this would come up. > > "In my mind, there really are only 2 approaches... *Spring* and > non-*Spring*, > or rather PCF and non-PCF, and since PCF is primarily based on Boot (given > Microservices/applications are the new concurrency), then I am really > saying the same thing." > > This would be cover non spring and attempt to give the community something > that had the same standardized experience as JSR 107 -- starting with the > Cache interface itself. Although we don't necessarily have to implement > Cache, it's method signatures are essentially a (non spring) caching > standard for Java developers at this point. We considered full blown JSR > 107 implementation but thought it was too robust for the needs mentioned > (that's not to say we couldn't get there incrementally). I think those > needs still exist open-source outside of PCF and don't cannibalize. > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Real Wes <thereal...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > > Here is a simple Java client _for enterprise use_ that I developed for > > Geode and distributed to several enterprises. It has similarities and > > differences for your goal. This project creates both server and client > > regions dynamically. It lists regions, alters regions… really anything > > that GFSH can do. It differs in that it calls GFSH to do its work rather > > than a Java interface. You can think of this as a Java API on top of > GFSH. > > > > You can use this model and keep the similarities while adjusting for the > > Java interface. > > > > Similarities > > - Client uses SDG and complies with JSR-107 > > [the Cache Manager is here: https://github.com/Pivotal- > > Data-Engineering/ClusterManagement/tree/master/ > > cluster-management-client/src/main/java/com/geode/cache/manager ] > > - After the server creates its region, client creates its region > > [ see createRegions at: https://github.com/Pivotal- > Data-Engineering/ > > ClusterManagement/blob/master/cluster-management- > > client/src/main/java/com/geode/cache/manager/RegionCreator.java<https:// > > github.com/Pivotal-Data-Engineering/ClusterManagement/ > blob/master/cluster- > > management-client/src/main/java/com/geode/cache/manager/ > RegionCreator.java> > > ] > > > > Differences > > Server dynamically calls GFSH to execute commands > > > > How it works > > - Whenever the client calls a region that does not exist, the client > looks > > for a <region name>.properties file. If the properties file exists, the > > region is created with the dynamic properties. > > - If <region name>.properties does not exist, default region properties > > are loaded and used to create the region. > > - properties are formed into a GFSH string and passed to a server > function > > - The server function calls GFSH using internal calls. It calls the > > GfshParser, executes the command, and then returns the parsed results. > > [see https://github.com/Pivotal-Data-Engineering/ > > ClusterManagement/blob/master/cluster-management-server/src/ > > main/java/com/geode/gfsh/GfshCommand.java] > > > > Limitations > > It uses internal calls to call GFSH. I have made requests to make this a > > stable public interface. Andrew Baker had a good idea to return gfsh > > results in JSON format with a new —results=json property to pass to GFSH. > > > > Strengths > > That is uses GFSH can be viewed as a strength to keep a consistent API, > > whether Java or GFSH > > > > TESTS > > You can start by running server tests at: https://github.com/Pivotal- > > Data-Engineering/ClusterManagement/tree/master/ > > cluster-management-server/src/test/java/com/geode/gfsh > > > > Client tests are at: https://github.com/Pivotal-Data-Engineering/ > > ClusterManagement/tree/master/cluster-management-client/src/ > > test/java/com/geode/management/client > > > > > > Regards, > > Wes Williams > > > > On Apr 24, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org<mailto:klund > > @apache.org>> wrote: > > > > A couple things I'd like to see: > > > > 1) completely new API that doesn't reuse the old API classes (or at least > > not the giant classes such as Cache and Region interfaces) > > 2) separation of API and Impl so that users can compile their code > against > > a dedicated client API jar > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Fred Krone <fkr...@pivotal.io<mailto: > fkro > > n...@pivotal.io>> wrote: > > > > In an effort to improve Java developer ease of use for caching with > Geode I > > am looking for feedback on going forward with creating a Java client. > This > > client will allow for server-side region creation and distributed data > > caching. This would allow for a thin client that fits with microservice > > caching patterns and also abstracts a cleaner client-server experience > > driven interface. > > > > Initially we were going to update the Region interface but were concerned > > with breaking existing applications. We also would like to provide > Region > > creation to a client application and so propose here solving both of > these > > areas with a Java client. > > > > It would have new project repo for the client. > > > > It would provide new Region interface for clients. The specifics of the > > API design are too lengthy for this conversation but implementation will > > resemble JSR 107 Cache interface. > > > > It would use the new security framework. > > > > > > *An example*, > > > > The client application simply creates an instance of client and points it > > to the locator: > > > > > > org.apache.geode.client.Client client = Client.create(locatorHost, > > locatorPort); > > > > > > Client has the following methods: > > > > package org.apache.geode.client; > > > > > > public interface GeodeClient { > > > > /** > > > > * creates the region on the servers, or gets the region if it exits, > > returns a PROXY region > > > > */ > > > > public Region getOrCreateRegion(RegionAttributes attributes, String > > name); > > > > > > /** > > > > * Returns a PROXY region if the region exists on the server > > > > */ > > > > public Region getRegion(String name); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MVP > > > > The smallest set of features to test this idea, learn and iterate, and > get > > the client into the communities hands for future iterations is: > > > > > > Create a server side Region from a client > > > > Region interface has CRUD on par with javax.cache.Cache (from JSR 107) > > > > Calls are asynchronous -- futures > > > > > > > > Also would like feedback on which future functionality would be most > useful > > from a thin client: > > > > Function execution > > > > Durable clients > > > > User defined serialization > > > > Register interest > > > > Queries > > > > CQ > > > > Near side caching > > > > Create disk stores from client > > > > Region group membership > > > > Client subscription load balancing > > Transactions > > > > > > Thanks, > > -Fred > > > > > > >
