ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Service grid redesign
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2018 15:21:08 GMT
Versions will complicate the implementation and will not be done in 2.7. I
would vote for the hot redeployment for now and add versions in 2.8.

D.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org> wrote:

> Real case is A/B testing.
> When you want to allow new service usage only to 0.1% of users.
> And only when you sure it works then replace all v1 with v2.
>
> So, I vote for versions.
> Let's do this in maven way (exact version, range, RELEASE or LATEST)
>
> чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 17:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
>
> > Vyacheslav,
> >
> > For the case you are describing, I would take the same approach as we
> have
> > for compute tasks. Keep the older version around only as long as there
> are
> > active requests and then undeploy it automatically. No need to allow it
> > linger around indefinitely.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitry, it's not only about hot redeployment.
> > >
> > > Denis, I don't see such use case, because of the answer in a different
> > > front.
> > >
> > > It relates to the best practices of SOA versioning [1] [2].
> > >
> > > For example:
> > > * we have a cluster with service [name="MySevice", v="1"];
> > > * I want to upgrade service to [name="MySevice", v="2"], but I have
> > > clients which are using [name="MySevice", v="1"] and can't stop
> > > processing;
> > > * With service versioning, we are able to deploy new service near
> > > existing service, then switch clients and undeploy outdated service.
> > >
> > > My only question is: are we going to implement such a feature [3] or
> > > not? Maybe PMC don't see such feature in Service Grid roadmap.
> > > IMO it's a good feature for a microservices platform.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.thbs.com/thbs-insights/soa-service-
> > > versioning-best-practices
> > > [2] https://www.ibm.com/blogs/bluemix/2017/08/rapidly-
> > > developing-applications-part-6-exposing-and-versioning-apis/
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069
> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which should
> > > have
> > > > been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like an overcomplication to me.
> > > > > Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but
> > not
> > > > > naming?
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradurvs@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being
> > used
> > > > > > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the
> same
> > > > > > full class name, but different classes versions for example
in
> > > > > > different classloaders.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > > > > > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different
> > implementation
> > > of a
> > > > > > > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur
<
> > > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning
[1].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going
to implement
> > this
> > > > > > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration
of
> > IEP-17
> > > > > > > > > because of change messages formats.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that
we are able to
> > > host
> > > > > > > > > services with the same name, but with different
> > class/version,
> > > we
> > > > > > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s
> lifecycle
> > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > of service’s name.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is
user going
> > to
> > > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message