ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Thin client: compute support
Date Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:54:44 GMT
Pavel,

The proposed solution won't work for PHP, Python, Node.js,
but it will work for C++ and .NET, isn't it? We will just have
to deploy C++/.NET code in closter (just as in Java).

Best Regards,
Igor


On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:59 PM Aleksandr Shapkin <lexwert@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Folks,
>
>
>
> I started to implement the ClusterGroup API.
>
>
>
> There are two tickets at the moment:
>
> - .NET thin client: introduce Cluster API [1]
>
> - .NET Thin Client: introduce ClusterGroup API [2]
>
>
>
> The first one introduces the cluster API and is merged to master.
>
> The second ticket is in progress and allows clients to query and filter
> server nodes.
>
>
>
> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11709
>
> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12385
>
> чт, 21 нояб. 2019 г. в 12:48, Denis Garus <garus.d.g@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hello, Sergey!
> >
> >
> > >> 3. Ignite doesn't have roles/authorization functionality for now.
> >
> >
> > I can't agree with you.
> >
> > We already have authorization functionality in Ignite and for a thin
> client
> > too [1].
> >
> > But, compute support for a thin client requires some additional efforts
> to
> > get an appropriate SecurityContext on a remote node.
> >
> > The list of tasks allowed for subjects, including thin clients, is the
> area
> > of responsibility of GridSecurityProcessor [2].
> >
> >
> >
> >    1.
> >
> >
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.security.client.ThinClientPermissionCheckTest
> >    2.
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.security.GridSecurityProcessor
> >
> >
> > чт, 21 нояб. 2019 г. в 12:41, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Good points, Sergey.
> > > Maybe you are right, and Java-based compute without peer deployment is
> a
> > > good first step for thin clients.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:32 PM Sergey Kozlov <skozlov@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Pavel
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:30 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 1. I believe that Cluster operations for Thin Client protocol are
> > > already
> > > > > in the works
> > > > > by Alexandr Shapkin. Can't find the ticket though.
> > > > > Alexandr, can you please confirm and attach the ticket number?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Proposed changes will work only for Java tasks that are already
> > > > deployed
> > > > > on server nodes.
> > > > > This is mostly useless for other thin clients we have (Python, PHP,
> > > .NET,
> > > > > C++).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't guess so. The task (execution) is a way to implement own
> layer
> > > for
> > > > the thin client application.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > We should think of a way to make this useful for all clients.
> > > > > For example, we may allow sending tasks in some scripting language
> > like
> > > > > Javascript.
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The arbitrary code execution from a remote client must be protected
> > > > from malicious code.
> > > > I don't know how it could be designed but without that we open the
> hole
> > > to
> > > > kill cluster.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:21 AM Sergey Kozlov <
> skozlov@gridgain.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The idea is great. But I have some concerns that probably should
> be
> > > > taken
> > > > > > into account for design:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    1. We need to have the ability to stop a task execution,
smth
> > like
> > > > > >    OP_COMPUTE_CANCEL_TASK  operation (client to server)
> > > > > >    2. What's about task execution timeout? It may help to the
> > cluster
> > > > > >    survival for buggy tasks
> > > > > >    3. Ignite doesn't have roles/authorization functionality
for
> > now.
> > > > But
> > > > > a
> > > > > >    task is the risky operation for cluster (for security
> reasons).
> > > > Could
> > > > > we
> > > > > >    add for Ignite configuration new options:
> > > > > >       - Explicit turning on for compute task support for thin
> > > protocol
> > > > > >       (disabled by default) for whole cluster
> > > > > >       - Explicit turning on for compute task support for a node
> > > > > >       - The list of task names (classes) allowed to execute
by
> thin
> > > > > client.
> > > > > >    4. Support the labeling for task that may help to investigate
> > > issues
> > > > > on
> > > > > >    cluster (the idea from IEP-34 [1])
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-34+Thin+client%3A+transactions+support
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:58 AM Alex Plehanov <
> > > > plehanov.alex@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have plans to start implementation of Compute interface
for
> > > Ignite
> > > > > thin
> > > > > > > client and want to discuss features that should be implemented.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We already have Compute implementation for binary-rest
clients
> > > > > > > (GridClientCompute), which have the following functionality:
> > > > > > > - Filtering cluster nodes (projection) for compute
> > > > > > > - Executing task by the name
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we can implement this functionality in a thin client
as
> > > well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First of all, we need some operation types to request a
list of
> > all
> > > > > > > available nodes and probably node attributes (by a list
of
> > nodes).
> > > > Node
> > > > > > > attributes will be helpful if we will decide to implement
> analog
> > of
> > > > > > > ClusterGroup#forAttribute or ClusterGroup#forePredicate
methods
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > client. Perhaps they can be requested lazily.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From the protocol point of view there will be two new
> operations:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OP_CLUSTER_GET_NODES
> > > > > > > Request: empty
> > > > > > > Response: long topologyVersion, int minorTopologyVersion,
int
> > > > > nodesCount,
> > > > > > > for each node set of node fields (UUID nodeId, Object or
String
> > > > > > > consistentId, long order, etc)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OP_CLUSTER_GET_NODE_ATTRIBUTES
> > > > > > > Request: int nodesCount, for each node: UUID nodeId
> > > > > > > Response: int nodesCount, for each node: int attributesCount,
> for
> > > > each
> > > > > > node
> > > > > > > attribute: String name, Object value
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To execute tasks we need something like these methods in
the
> > client
> > > > > API:
> > > > > > > Object execute(String task, Object arg)
> > > > > > > Future<Object> executeAsync(String task, Object arg)
> > > > > > > Object affinityExecute(String task, String cache, Object
key,
> > > Object
> > > > > arg)
> > > > > > > Future<Object> affinityExecuteAsync(String task,
String cache,
> > > Object
> > > > > > key,
> > > > > > > Object arg)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which can be mapped to protocol operations:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK
> > > > > > > Request: UUID nodeId, String taskName, Object arg
> > > > > > > Response: Object result
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK_AFFINITY
> > > > > > > Request: String cacheName, Object key, String taskName,
Object
> > arg
> > > > > > > Response: Object result
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second operation is needed because we sometimes can't
> > calculate
> > > > and
> > > > > > > connect to affinity node on the client-side (affinity awareness
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > disabled, custom affinity function can be used or there
can be
> no
> > > > > > > connection between client and affinity node), but we can
make
> > best
> > > > > effort
> > > > > > > to send request to target node if affinity awareness is
> enabled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently, on the server-side requests always processed
> > > synchronously
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > responses are sent right after request was processed. To
> execute
> > > long
> > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > async we should whether change this logic or introduce
some
> kind
> > > > > two-way
> > > > > > > communication between client and server (now only one-way
> > requests
> > > > from
> > > > > > > client to server are allowed).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Two-way communication can also be useful in the future
if we
> will
> > > > send
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > server-side generated events to clients.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In case of two-way communication there can be new operations
> > > > > introduced:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK (from client to server)
> > > > > > > Request: UUID nodeId, String taskName, Object arg
> > > > > > > Response: long taskId
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OP_COMPUTE_TASK_FINISHED (from server to client)
> > > > > > > Request: taskId, Object result
> > > > > > > Response: empty
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The same for affinity requests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, we can implement not only execute task operation,
but
> some
> > > > other
> > > > > > > operations from IgniteCompute (broadcast, run, call), but
it
> will
> > > be
> > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > only for java thin client. And even with java thin client
we
> > should
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > implement peer-class-loading for thin clients (this also
> requires
> > > > > two-way
> > > > > > > client-server communication) or put classes with executed
> > closures
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > server locally.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think about proposed protocol changes?
> > > > > > > Do we need two-way requests between client and server?
> > > > > > > Do we need support of compute methods other than "execute
> task"?
> > > > > > > What do you think about peer-class-loading for thin clients?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sergey Kozlov
> > > > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sergey Kozlov
> > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Alex.
>

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