For our builds at QUIC, we're not interested in hitting an external server to get code. So we'd either hit the server when needed and check in the resultant bindings, or (preferably) use bindings from upstream.
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Zachary Turner via lldb-dev Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 11:45 AM To: Todd Fiala Cc: LLDB Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] bindings as service idea Just to re-iterate, if we use the bindings as a service, then I envision checking the bindings in. This addresses a lot of the potential pitfalls you point out, such as the "oops, you can't hit the network, no build for you" and the issue of production build flows not wanting to hit a third party server, etc. So if we do that, then I don't think falling back to local generation will be an issue (or important) in practice. i.e. it won't matter if you can't hit the network. The reason I say this is that if you can't hit the network you can't check in code either. So, sure, there might be a short window where you can't do a local build , but that would only affect you if you were actively modifying a swig interface file AND you were actively without a network connection. The service claims 99.95% uptime, and it's safe to say we are looking at significantly less than 100% usage of the server (given checked in bindings), so I think we're looking at once a year -- if that -- that anyone anywhere has an issue with being able to access the service. And, as you said, the option can be provided to change the host that the service runs on, so someone could run one internally. But do note, that if the goal here is to get the SWIG version bumped in the upstream, then we will probably take advantage of some of these new SWIG features, which may not work in earlier versions of SWIG. So you should consider how useful it will be to be able to run this server internally, because if you can't run a new version of swig locally, then can you run it internally anywhere? I don't know, I'll leave that for you to figure out. Either way, it will definitely have the ability to use a different host, because that's the easiest way to debug theclient and server (i.e. run them on the same machine with 127.0.0.1) On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:00 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com <mailto:todd.fi...@gmail.com> > wrote: For the benefit of continuity in conversation, here is what you had to say about it before: > One possibility (which I mentioned to you offline, but I'll put it here for others to see) is that we make a swig bot which is hosted in the cloud much like our public build bots. We provide a Python script that can be run on your machine, which sends requests over to the swig bot to run swig and send back the results. Availability of the service would be governed by the SLA of Google Compute Engine, viewable here: https://cloud.google.com/compute/sla?hl=en > If we do something like this, it would allow us to raise the SWIG version in the upstream, and at that point I can see some benefit in checking the bindings in. Short of that, I still dont' see the value proposition in checking bindings in to the repo. [bits deleted] > If it means we can get off of SWIG 1.x in the upstream, I will do the work to make remote swig generation service and get it up and running. I'd like feedback from others on this. Is this something we want to consider doing? >From my perspective, this seems reasonable to look into doing if we: (a) have the service code available, and (b) if we so choose, we can readily have the script hit another server (so that a consumer can have the entire setup on an internal network), and (c: option 1) be able to fall back to generate with swig locally as we do now in the event that we can't hit the server (c: option 2) rather than fall back to swig generation, use swig generation as primary (as it is now) but, if a swig is not found, then do the get-bindings-as-a-service flow. This does open up multiple ways to do something, but I think we need to avoid a failure mode that says "Oops, you can't hit the network. Sorry, no lldb build for you." Reasoning: For (a): just so we all know what we're using. For (b): I can envision production build flows that will not want to be hitting a third-party server. We shouldn't require that. For (c): we don't want to prevent building in scenarios that can't hit a network during the build. -Todd On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com <mailto:todd.fi...@gmail.com> > wrote: On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com <mailto:todd.fi...@gmail.com> > wrote: Hey Zachary, I think the time pressure has gotten the better of me, so I want to apologize for getting snippy about the static bindings of late. I am confident we will get to a good solution for removing that dependency, but I can certainly wait for a solution (using an alternate approach in our branch) until we arrive at something more palatable to everyone. Regarding the bindings as service idea: How quickly do you think you could flesh out the bindings as a service idea? With a relatively strong dislike for the static approach I'm taking, I can back off that and just use my current code here in a downstream branch for now. Ultimately I want to remove the requirement for swig, but I can probably achieve that without doing it in upstream if we're going to have some solution there at some point ideally sooner than later. Also - I think you were going to send me a swig 3.x binding to try out (I'd need the LLDBWrapPythoh.cpp and the lldb.py, and you'd just need to let me know if it still needs to be post-processed or it would need to be done). Can we shoot for trying that out maybe tomorrow? Hey I got these, Zachary. They just didn't go in my inbox. Thanks! -- -Todd -- -Todd -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
