Volunteer for ASF Board report?
Hi we need to submit a report on the Geode project to the ASF Board. Any volunteers to take this up? The report is due 5/2 and should be drafted for community review a few days prior to that. Thanks, Anthony
Re: [Discuss] Scope of the CacheElement interface with the respect to the public cluster configuration API
It looks like there are two classes called CacheElement in the codebase; am I correct in thinking that you're referring to org.apache.geode.cache.configuration.CacheElement? This class doesn't have a Javadoc, so it's a little hard as an outsider to understand exactly what it is or how it's used. Can you explain the basics of how it's used? Thanks, Galen On 4/19/18 5:03 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: Hello all! We introduced the CacheElement interface as part of our experimental API to update the cluster configuration. I'd like to solidify and document our intent for the interface and the extent to which it is expected to apply. In its current form, the CacheElement interface extends Serlializable and Identifiable. Serialization is required for communication between members, and Identifiable is useful during lookup, modification, and removal of an existing configuration object. At our current iteration, it is not entirely clear which of our own configuration objects should or should not implement CacheElement. I think one of following interpretations may be best, but don't know which would be most natural. And, of course, if you have another that I've overlooked, I'd love to hear it. Classes that implement CacheElement are... A) ... only custom configuration elements provided by extension developers. This declaration will appear at a top-level class declaration that is directly consumed by the CacheConfig or RegionConfig. B) ... custom configuration elements, as well as any configuration object that we wish to be searchable within the configuration. C) ... custom configuration elements, as well as any configuration object appearing at the same level in the configuration hierarchy. That is, every getter of both CacheConfig and RegionConfig should return either a CacheElement, or a List. D) ... any object, excepting those in java.lang.*, that appears anywhere in the cluster configuration's hierarchy, including all inner classes. For example, ConnectorService.RegionMapping implements CacheElement. Each comes with its own potential pitfalls. Option (A) seems restrictive and sparse. Option (B) is subjective. Many classes do not have a `name' or `id' field, making option (D) difficult. I like option (C), although we have already moved beyond that specification in our current iteration, with ConnectorService.RegionMapping implementing CacheElement. Thoughts? Imagination is Change. ~Patrick Rhomberg
Re: [Discuss] Scope of the CacheElement interface with the respect to the public cluster configuration API
Sorry, I forgot to step away from the In The Weeds where I am. o.a.g.cache.configuration.CacheElement is the experimental interface meant to identify an extension's configuration classes for consumption with the new cluster configuration interface. Extension developers can then use the configuration service to disseminate these configuration objects via member groups, consistent with other configuration elements (e.g., indices and gateways). See [1] for the API's proposal. We also have been using this interface internally on some of our own configuration objects, for instance the JDBC's ConnectorService. This allowed us to use some utilities we had made for the easy retrieval of the configuration objects. The lack of documentation on this interface is my core concern. The initial intent was to label those extension's configuration classes, but beyond that, its use is ambiguous. Even within that purview, it's not clear whether an inner class should be required to implement CacheElement. Jinmei and I had a thread recently on a pull request of hers [2] suggesting perhaps "anything you want to be searchable in the config" should have the interface applied to it. That remains more subjective than I'd personally like, but it would at least be documentable. So to return to my initial concerns: our current use of the interface is inconsistent, and with it being an external API, we should properly define the interface's scope for both external and internal use. I propose four possible scopes in the initial message. @Udo, I haven't added a section on the linked proposal, but the page could do with a larger update in any case. I'll start that straight away. [1] Public API for Cluster Configuration Proposal: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=75975896 [2] PR #1853: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/1853 On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Galen O'Sullivan wrote: > It looks like there are two classes called CacheElement in the codebase; > am I correct in thinking that you're referring to > org.apache.geode.cache.configuration.CacheElement? > > This class doesn't have a Javadoc, so it's a little hard as an outsider to > understand exactly what it is or how it's used. Can you explain the basics > of how it's used? > > Thanks, > > Galen > > > > On 4/19/18 5:03 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > >> Hello all! >> >>We introduced the CacheElement interface as part of our experimental >> API >> to update the cluster configuration. I'd like to solidify and document >> our >> intent for the interface and the extent to which it is expected to apply. >>In its current form, the CacheElement interface extends Serlializable >> and >> Identifiable. Serialization is required for communication between >> members, and Identifiable is useful during lookup, modification, and >> removal of an existing configuration object. >>At our current iteration, it is not entirely clear which of our own >> configuration objects should or should not implement CacheElement. I >> think >> one of following interpretations may be best, but don't know which would >> be >> most natural. And, of course, if you have another that I've overlooked, >> I'd love to hear it. >> >> Classes that implement CacheElement are... >> >> A) ... only custom configuration elements provided by extension >> developers. This declaration will appear at a top-level class declaration >> that is directly consumed by the CacheConfig or RegionConfig. >> >> B) ... custom configuration elements, as well as any configuration object >> that we wish to be searchable within the configuration. >> >> C) ... custom configuration elements, as well as any configuration object >> appearing at the same level in the configuration hierarchy. That is, >> every >> getter of both CacheConfig and RegionConfig should return either a >> CacheElement, or a List. >> >> D) ... any object, excepting those in java.lang.*, that appears anywhere >> in >> the cluster configuration's hierarchy, including all inner classes. For >> example, ConnectorService.RegionMapping implements CacheElement. >> >> >>Each comes with its own potential pitfalls. >>Option (A) seems restrictive and sparse. >>Option (B) is subjective. >>Many classes do not have a `name' or `id' field, making option (D) >> difficult. >>I like option (C), although we have already moved beyond that >> specification in our current iteration, with >> ConnectorService.RegionMapping >> implementing CacheElement. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Imagination is Change. >> ~Patrick Rhomberg >> >> >
Re: [Discuss] Scope of the CacheElement interface with the respect to the public cluster configuration API
Any config object that needs to be Identifiable and Serializable should be identified as a CacheElement, but we don't have to go through all of the objects and identify them at once. When we are refactoring each individual commands and recognize the need, we will identify the object to be a CacheElement. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > Sorry, I forgot to step away from the In The Weeds where I am. > > o.a.g.cache.configuration.CacheElement is the experimental interface meant > to identify an extension's configuration classes for consumption with the > new cluster configuration interface. Extension developers can then use the > configuration service to disseminate these configuration objects via member > groups, consistent with other configuration elements (e.g., indices and > gateways). See [1] for the API's proposal. > > We also have been using this interface internally on some of our own > configuration objects, for instance the JDBC's ConnectorService. This > allowed us to use some utilities we had made for the easy retrieval of the > configuration objects. > > The lack of documentation on this interface is my core concern. The > initial intent was to label those extension's configuration classes, but > beyond that, its use is ambiguous. Even within that purview, it's not > clear whether an inner class should be required to implement CacheElement. > > Jinmei and I had a thread recently on a pull request of hers [2] suggesting > perhaps "anything you want to be searchable in the config" should have the > interface applied to it. That remains more subjective than I'd personally > like, but it would at least be documentable. > > So to return to my initial concerns: our current use of the interface is > inconsistent, and with it being an external API, we should properly define > the interface's scope for both external and internal use. I propose four > possible scopes in the initial message. > > @Udo, I haven't added a section on the linked proposal, but the page could > do with a larger update in any case. I'll start that straight away. > > [1] Public API for Cluster Configuration Proposal: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=75975896 > [2] PR #1853: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/1853 > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Galen O'Sullivan > wrote: > > > It looks like there are two classes called CacheElement in the codebase; > > am I correct in thinking that you're referring to > > org.apache.geode.cache.configuration.CacheElement? > > > > This class doesn't have a Javadoc, so it's a little hard as an outsider > to > > understand exactly what it is or how it's used. Can you explain the > basics > > of how it's used? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Galen > > > > > > > > On 4/19/18 5:03 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > > > >> Hello all! > >> > >>We introduced the CacheElement interface as part of our experimental > >> API > >> to update the cluster configuration. I'd like to solidify and document > >> our > >> intent for the interface and the extent to which it is expected to > apply. > >>In its current form, the CacheElement interface extends Serlializable > >> and > >> Identifiable. Serialization is required for communication > between > >> members, and Identifiable is useful during lookup, modification, and > >> removal of an existing configuration object. > >>At our current iteration, it is not entirely clear which of our own > >> configuration objects should or should not implement CacheElement. I > >> think > >> one of following interpretations may be best, but don't know which would > >> be > >> most natural. And, of course, if you have another that I've overlooked, > >> I'd love to hear it. > >> > >> Classes that implement CacheElement are... > >> > >> A) ... only custom configuration elements provided by extension > >> developers. This declaration will appear at a top-level class > declaration > >> that is directly consumed by the CacheConfig or RegionConfig. > >> > >> B) ... custom configuration elements, as well as any configuration > object > >> that we wish to be searchable within the configuration. > >> > >> C) ... custom configuration elements, as well as any configuration > object > >> appearing at the same level in the configuration hierarchy. That is, > >> every > >> getter of both CacheConfig and RegionConfig should return either a > >> CacheElement, or a List. > >> > >> D) ... any object, excepting those in java.lang.*, that appears anywhere > >> in > >> the cluster configuration's hierarchy, including all inner classes. For > >> example, ConnectorService.RegionMapping implements CacheElement. > >> > >> > >>Each comes with its own potential pitfalls. > >>Option (A) seems restrictive and sparse. > >>Option (B) is subjective. > >>Many classes do not have a `name' or `id' field, making option (D) > >> difficult. > >>I like option (C), although we have already moved beyond that > >> specif
[Spring CI] Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #898 was SUCCESSFUL (with 2376 tests)
--- Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #898 was successful. --- Scheduled 2378 tests in total. https://build.spring.io/browse/SGF-NAG-898/ -- This message is automatically generated by Atlassian Bamboo
Re: [Discuss] Scope of the CacheElement interface with the respect to the public cluster configuration API
Again, my concern is with documentation and direction, not necessarily going through and making these changes at right now. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Jinmei Liao wrote: > Any config object that needs to be Identifiable and Serializable should be > identified as a CacheElement, but we don't have to go through all of the > objects and identify them at once. When we are refactoring each individual > commands and recognize the need, we will identify the object to be a > CacheElement. > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Patrick Rhomberg > wrote: > > > Sorry, I forgot to step away from the In The Weeds where I am. > > > > o.a.g.cache.configuration.CacheElement is the experimental interface > meant > > to identify an extension's configuration classes for consumption with the > > new cluster configuration interface. Extension developers can then use > the > > configuration service to disseminate these configuration objects via > member > > groups, consistent with other configuration elements (e.g., indices and > > gateways). See [1] for the API's proposal. > > > > We also have been using this interface internally on some of our own > > configuration objects, for instance the JDBC's ConnectorService. This > > allowed us to use some utilities we had made for the easy retrieval of > the > > configuration objects. > > > > The lack of documentation on this interface is my core concern. The > > initial intent was to label those extension's configuration classes, but > > beyond that, its use is ambiguous. Even within that purview, it's not > > clear whether an inner class should be required to implement > CacheElement. > > > > Jinmei and I had a thread recently on a pull request of hers [2] > suggesting > > perhaps "anything you want to be searchable in the config" should have > the > > interface applied to it. That remains more subjective than I'd > personally > > like, but it would at least be documentable. > > > > So to return to my initial concerns: our current use of the interface is > > inconsistent, and with it being an external API, we should properly > define > > the interface's scope for both external and internal use. I propose four > > possible scopes in the initial message. > > > > @Udo, I haven't added a section on the linked proposal, but the page > could > > do with a larger update in any case. I'll start that straight away. > > > > [1] Public API for Cluster Configuration Proposal: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > action?pageId=75975896 > > [2] PR #1853: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/1853 > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Galen O'Sullivan < > gosulli...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > It looks like there are two classes called CacheElement in the > codebase; > > > am I correct in thinking that you're referring to > > > org.apache.geode.cache.configuration.CacheElement? > > > > > > This class doesn't have a Javadoc, so it's a little hard as an outsider > > to > > > understand exactly what it is or how it's used. Can you explain the > > basics > > > of how it's used? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Galen > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/19/18 5:03 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > > > > > >> Hello all! > > >> > > >>We introduced the CacheElement interface as part of our > experimental > > >> API > > >> to update the cluster configuration. I'd like to solidify and > document > > >> our > > >> intent for the interface and the extent to which it is expected to > > apply. > > >>In its current form, the CacheElement interface extends > Serlializable > > >> and > > >> Identifiable. Serialization is required for communication > > between > > >> members, and Identifiable is useful during lookup, modification, and > > >> removal of an existing configuration object. > > >>At our current iteration, it is not entirely clear which of our own > > >> configuration objects should or should not implement CacheElement. I > > >> think > > >> one of following interpretations may be best, but don't know which > would > > >> be > > >> most natural. And, of course, if you have another that I've > overlooked, > > >> I'd love to hear it. > > >> > > >> Classes that implement CacheElement are... > > >> > > >> A) ... only custom configuration elements provided by extension > > >> developers. This declaration will appear at a top-level class > > declaration > > >> that is directly consumed by the CacheConfig or RegionConfig. > > >> > > >> B) ... custom configuration elements, as well as any configuration > > object > > >> that we wish to be searchable within the configuration. > > >> > > >> C) ... custom configuration elements, as well as any configuration > > object > > >> appearing at the same level in the configuration hierarchy. That is, > > >> every > > >> getter of both CacheConfig and RegionConfig should return either a > > >> CacheElement, or a List. > > >> > > >> D) ... any object, excepting those in java.lang.*, that appears > anywhere > > >> in > > >> th
Errored: apache/geode-examples#217 (release/1.6.0 - 45d174a)
Build Update for apache/geode-examples - Build: #217 Status: Errored Duration: 2 mins and 2 secs Commit: 45d174a (release/1.6.0) Author: Mike Stolz Message: Adding Mikes keys and changing version to 1.6.0 View the changeset: https://github.com/apache/geode-examples/compare/3da5e6bd4197...45d174a1280e View the full build log and details: https://travis-ci.org/apache/geode-examples/builds/371283032?utm_source=email&utm_medium=notification -- You can configure recipients for build notifications in your .travis.yml file. See https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/notifications This email was sent to dev@geode.apache.org (mailto:dev@geode.apache.org) unsubscribe from this list (http://clicks.travis-ci.com/track/unsub.php?u=14313403&id=f4e54bb4fbca46258157bf868d0802da.J7HZbFy6S8dTlH7tD%2B7uJ8FM8HM%3D&r=https%3A%2F%2Fmandrillapp.com%2Funsub%3Fmd_email%3Ddev%2540geode.apache.org)
Re: Volunteer for ASF Board report?
Correction, the due date is 5/9. > On Apr 25, 2018, at 11:33 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > Hi we need to submit a report on the Geode project to the ASF Board. Any > volunteers to take this up? > > The report is due 5/2 and should be drafted for community review a few days > prior to that. > > Thanks, > Anthony >
Geode unit tests completed in 'develop/DistributedTest' with non-zero exit code
Pipeline results can be found at: Concourse: https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop/jobs/DistributedTest/builds/301
Geode unit tests completed in 'release-1.6.0/DistributedTest' with non-zero exit code
Pipeline results can be found at: Concourse: https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/release-1.6.0/jobs/DistributedTest/builds/12
