[infinispan-dev] Infinispan client/server architecture based on gRPC

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan client/server architecture based on gRPC

Adrian Nistor
Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it
has to compute it itself.
The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be
different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could be
done on the server, just a thought.

On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:

> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote:
>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder.
>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this
>> experiment.
>>
>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we strive
>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an interesting
>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate
>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not
>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a
>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one
>> from google.
>>
>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on
>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of
>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based service
>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type
>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that
>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing
>> everything down to a byte[].
> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for correct
> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key and
> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the storage
> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?).
>
> Radim
>
>> Adrian
>>
>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The
>>>      alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>      each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me."
>>>
>>>      No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to
>>>      re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new
>>>      supported language.
>>>      Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with Google's
>>>      protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can continue
>>>      using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or without gRPC.
>>>      Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, but
>>>      we can add support for that with little effort.
>>>
>>>      The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod
>>>      invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of
>>>      implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I
>>>      wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied
>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said:
>>>
>>>>   The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is the
>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language
>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to implement
>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them to
>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to
>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, not
>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations
>>> on which to build.
>>>
>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get
>>> different features in is because each client implements its own
>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations
>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects).
>>>
>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer right
>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and
>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient
>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster
>>> failover...etc.
>>>
>>>  From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client
>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been
>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo
>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode.
>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our issues,
>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO.
>>>
>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot Rod
>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more work.
>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you
>>> start supporting streams based commands.
>>>
>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and
>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. I
>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us.
>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility
>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on this).
>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are
>>> more important.
>>>
>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>      On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>      Thanks Adrian,
>>>>
>>>>      of course there's a marshalling work under the cover and that is
>>>>      reflected into the generated code (specially the accessor
>>>>      methods generated from the oneof clause).
>>>>
>>>>      My opinion is that on the client side this could be accepted, as
>>>>      long as the API are well defined and documented: application
>>>>      developer can build an adhoc decorator on the top if needed. The
>>>>      alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>>      each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me.
>>>>
>>>>      On the server side (java only) the situation is different:
>>>>      protobuf is optimized for streaming not for storing so probably
>>>>      a Protostream layer is needed.
>>>>
>>>>      On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Adrian Nistor
>>>>      <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>          Hi Vittorio,
>>>>          thanks for exploring gRPC. It seems like a very elegant
>>>>          solution for exposing services. I'll have a look at your PoC
>>>>          soon.
>>>>
>>>>          I feel there are some remarks that need to be made regarding
>>>>          gRPC. gRPC is just some nice cheesy topping on top of
>>>>          protobuf. Google's implementation of protobuf, to be more
>>>>          precise.
>>>>          It does not need handwritten marshallers, but the 'No need
>>>>          for marshaller' does not accurately describe it. Marshallers
>>>>          are needed and are generated under the cover by the library
>>>>          and so are the data objects and you are unfortunately forced
>>>>          to use them. That's both the good news and the bad news:)
>>>>          The whole thing looks very promising and friendly for many
>>>>          uses cases, especially for demos and PoCs :))). Nobody wants
>>>>          to write those marshallers. But it starts to become a
>>>>          nuisance if you want to use your own data objects.
>>>>          There is also the ugliness and excessive memory footprint of
>>>>          the generated code, which is the reason Infinispan did not
>>>>          adopt the protobuf-java library although it did adopt
>>>>          protobuf as an encoding format.
>>>>          The Protostream library was created as an alternative
>>>>          implementation to solve the aforementioned problems with the
>>>>          generated code. It solves this by letting the user provide
>>>>          their own data objects. And for the marshallers it gives you
>>>>          two options: a) write the marshaller yourself (hated), b)
>>>>          annotated your data objects and the marshaller gets
>>>>          generated (loved). Protostream does not currently support
>>>>          service definitions right now but this is something I
>>>>          started to investigate recently after Galder asked me if I
>>>>          think it's doable. I think I'll only find out after I do it:)
>>>>
>>>>          Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          On 05/28/2018 04:15 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>>          Hi Infinispan developers,
>>>>>
>>>>>          I'm working on a solution for developers who need to access
>>>>>          Infinispan services  through different programming languages.
>>>>>
>>>>>          The focus is not on developing a full featured client, but
>>>>>          rather discover the value and the limits of this approach.
>>>>>
>>>>>          - is it possible to automatically generate useful clients
>>>>>          in different languages?
>>>>>          - can that clients interoperate on the same cache with the
>>>>>          same data types?
>>>>>
>>>>>          I came out with a small prototype that I would like to
>>>>>          submit to you and on which I would like to gather your
>>>>>          impressions.
>>>>>
>>>>>           You can found the project here [1]: is a gRPC-based
>>>>>          client/server architecture for Infinispan based on and
>>>>>          EmbeddedCache, with very few features exposed atm.
>>>>>
>>>>>          Currently the project is nothing more than a poc with the
>>>>>          following interesting features:
>>>>>
>>>>>          - client can be generated in all the grpc supported
>>>>>          language: java, go, c++ examples are provided;
>>>>>          - the interface is full typed. No need for marshaller and
>>>>>          clients build in different language can cooperate on the
>>>>>          same cache;
>>>>>
>>>>>          The second item is my preferred one beacuse it frees the
>>>>>          developer from data marshalling.
>>>>>
>>>>>          What do you think about?
>>>>>          Sounds interesting?
>>>>>          Can you see any flaw?
>>>>>
>>>>>          There's also a list of issues for the future [2], basically
>>>>>          I would like to investigate these questions:
>>>>>          How far this architecture can go?
>>>>>          Topology, events, queries... how many of the Infinispan
>>>>>          features can be fit in a grpc architecture?
>>>>>
>>>>>          Thank you
>>>>>          Vittorio
>>>>>
>>>>>          [1] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc
>>>>>          [2] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues
>>>>>
>>>>>          --
>>>>>
>>>>>          Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>>
>>>>>          Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>>          Red Hat
>>>>>
>>>>>          <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>          Milan, Italy
>>>>>
>>>>>          [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>>          irc: rigazilla
>>>>>
>>>>>          <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>>>          infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>          [hidden email]
>>>>>          <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>          https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      --
>>>>
>>>>      Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>
>>>>      Senior Software Engineer
>>>>
>>>>      Red Hat
>>>>
>>>>      <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>>      Milan, Italy
>>>>
>>>>      [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>>      irc: rigazilla
>>>>
>>>>      <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>      [hidden email]
>>>      <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>      https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan client/server architecture based on gRPC

Sanne Grinovero-3
On 30 May 2018 at 13:26, Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it
> has to compute it itself.
> The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be
> different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could be
> done on the server, just a thought.

Unless we want to explore some form of hybrid gRPC which benefits from
Hot Rod intelligence level 3?

In which case the client will need to compute the hash before it can
hint the network layer were to connect to.

Thanks,
Sanne

>
> On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:
>> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote:
>>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder.
>>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this
>>> experiment.
>>>
>>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we strive
>>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an interesting
>>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate
>>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not
>>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a
>>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one
>>> from google.
>>>
>>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on
>>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of
>>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based service
>>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type
>>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that
>>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing
>>> everything down to a byte[].
>> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for correct
>> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key and
>> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the storage
>> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?).
>>
>> Radim
>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The
>>>>      alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>>      each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me."
>>>>
>>>>      No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to
>>>>      re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new
>>>>      supported language.
>>>>      Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with Google's
>>>>      protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can continue
>>>>      using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or without gRPC.
>>>>      Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, but
>>>>      we can add support for that with little effort.
>>>>
>>>>      The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod
>>>>      invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of
>>>>      implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I
>>>>      wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied
>>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said:
>>>>
>>>>>   The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is the
>>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language
>>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to implement
>>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them to
>>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to
>>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, not
>>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations
>>>> on which to build.
>>>>
>>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get
>>>> different features in is because each client implements its own
>>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations
>>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects).
>>>>
>>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer right
>>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and
>>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient
>>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster
>>>> failover...etc.
>>>>
>>>>  From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client
>>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been
>>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo
>>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode.
>>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our issues,
>>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot Rod
>>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more work.
>>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you
>>>> start supporting streams based commands.
>>>>
>>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and
>>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. I
>>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us.
>>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility
>>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on this).
>>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are
>>>> more important.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>>      Thanks Adrian,
>>>>>
>>>>>      of course there's a marshalling work under the cover and that is
>>>>>      reflected into the generated code (specially the accessor
>>>>>      methods generated from the oneof clause).
>>>>>
>>>>>      My opinion is that on the client side this could be accepted, as
>>>>>      long as the API are well defined and documented: application
>>>>>      developer can build an adhoc decorator on the top if needed. The
>>>>>      alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>>>      each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>      On the server side (java only) the situation is different:
>>>>>      protobuf is optimized for streaming not for storing so probably
>>>>>      a Protostream layer is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>      On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Adrian Nistor
>>>>>      <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>          Hi Vittorio,
>>>>>          thanks for exploring gRPC. It seems like a very elegant
>>>>>          solution for exposing services. I'll have a look at your PoC
>>>>>          soon.
>>>>>
>>>>>          I feel there are some remarks that need to be made regarding
>>>>>          gRPC. gRPC is just some nice cheesy topping on top of
>>>>>          protobuf. Google's implementation of protobuf, to be more
>>>>>          precise.
>>>>>          It does not need handwritten marshallers, but the 'No need
>>>>>          for marshaller' does not accurately describe it. Marshallers
>>>>>          are needed and are generated under the cover by the library
>>>>>          and so are the data objects and you are unfortunately forced
>>>>>          to use them. That's both the good news and the bad news:)
>>>>>          The whole thing looks very promising and friendly for many
>>>>>          uses cases, especially for demos and PoCs :))). Nobody wants
>>>>>          to write those marshallers. But it starts to become a
>>>>>          nuisance if you want to use your own data objects.
>>>>>          There is also the ugliness and excessive memory footprint of
>>>>>          the generated code, which is the reason Infinispan did not
>>>>>          adopt the protobuf-java library although it did adopt
>>>>>          protobuf as an encoding format.
>>>>>          The Protostream library was created as an alternative
>>>>>          implementation to solve the aforementioned problems with the
>>>>>          generated code. It solves this by letting the user provide
>>>>>          their own data objects. And for the marshallers it gives you
>>>>>          two options: a) write the marshaller yourself (hated), b)
>>>>>          annotated your data objects and the marshaller gets
>>>>>          generated (loved). Protostream does not currently support
>>>>>          service definitions right now but this is something I
>>>>>          started to investigate recently after Galder asked me if I
>>>>>          think it's doable. I think I'll only find out after I do it:)
>>>>>
>>>>>          Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          On 05/28/2018 04:15 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>>>          Hi Infinispan developers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          I'm working on a solution for developers who need to access
>>>>>>          Infinispan services  through different programming languages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          The focus is not on developing a full featured client, but
>>>>>>          rather discover the value and the limits of this approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          - is it possible to automatically generate useful clients
>>>>>>          in different languages?
>>>>>>          - can that clients interoperate on the same cache with the
>>>>>>          same data types?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          I came out with a small prototype that I would like to
>>>>>>          submit to you and on which I would like to gather your
>>>>>>          impressions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           You can found the project here [1]: is a gRPC-based
>>>>>>          client/server architecture for Infinispan based on and
>>>>>>          EmbeddedCache, with very few features exposed atm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Currently the project is nothing more than a poc with the
>>>>>>          following interesting features:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          - client can be generated in all the grpc supported
>>>>>>          language: java, go, c++ examples are provided;
>>>>>>          - the interface is full typed. No need for marshaller and
>>>>>>          clients build in different language can cooperate on the
>>>>>>          same cache;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          The second item is my preferred one beacuse it frees the
>>>>>>          developer from data marshalling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          What do you think about?
>>>>>>          Sounds interesting?
>>>>>>          Can you see any flaw?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          There's also a list of issues for the future [2], basically
>>>>>>          I would like to investigate these questions:
>>>>>>          How far this architecture can go?
>>>>>>          Topology, events, queries... how many of the Infinispan
>>>>>>          features can be fit in a grpc architecture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Thank you
>>>>>>          Vittorio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          [1] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc
>>>>>>          [2] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Red Hat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Milan, Italy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          irc: rigazilla
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>>>>          infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>>          [hidden email]
>>>>>>          <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>          https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      --
>>>>>
>>>>>      Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>>
>>>>>      Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>>      Red Hat
>>>>>
>>>>>      <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>      Milan, Italy
>>>>>
>>>>>      [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>>      irc: rigazilla
>>>>>
>>>>>      <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>
>>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>>      infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>      [hidden email]
>>>>      <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>      https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan client/server architecture based on gRPC

Radim Vansa
On 05/30/2018 02:53 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 30 May 2018 at 13:26, Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it
>> has to compute it itself.
>> The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be
>> different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could be
>> done on the server, just a thought.
> Unless we want to explore some form of hybrid gRPC which benefits from
> Hot Rod intelligence level 3?

Since Tristan said that gRPC is viable only if the performance is
comparable - I concluded that this involves the smart routing. I was
hoping that gRPC networking layer would provide some hook to specify the
destination. An alternative would be a proxy hosted on the same node
that would do the routing.

If we're to replace Hot Rod I was expecting the (generated) gRPC client
to be extensible enough to allow us add client-side features (like near
cache, maybe listeners would need client-side code too) but saving us
most of the hassle with networking and parsing, while providing basic
client in languages we don't embrace without additional cost.

R.

>
> In which case the client will need to compute the hash before it can
> hint the network layer were to connect to.
>
> Thanks,
> Sanne
>
>> On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:
>>> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote:
>>>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder.
>>>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this
>>>> experiment.
>>>>
>>>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we strive
>>>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an interesting
>>>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate
>>>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not
>>>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a
>>>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one
>>>> from google.
>>>>
>>>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on
>>>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of
>>>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based service
>>>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type
>>>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that
>>>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing
>>>> everything down to a byte[].
>>> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for correct
>>> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key and
>>> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the storage
>>> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?).
>>>
>>> Radim
>>>
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The
>>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me."
>>>>>
>>>>>       No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to
>>>>>       re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new
>>>>>       supported language.
>>>>>       Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with Google's
>>>>>       protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can continue
>>>>>       using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or without gRPC.
>>>>>       Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, but
>>>>>       we can add support for that with little effort.
>>>>>
>>>>>       The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod
>>>>>       invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of
>>>>>       implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I
>>>>>       wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied
>>>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>    The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is the
>>>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language
>>>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to implement
>>>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them to
>>>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to
>>>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, not
>>>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations
>>>>> on which to build.
>>>>>
>>>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get
>>>>> different features in is because each client implements its own
>>>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations
>>>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects).
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer right
>>>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and
>>>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient
>>>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster
>>>>> failover...etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>   From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client
>>>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been
>>>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo
>>>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode.
>>>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our issues,
>>>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot Rod
>>>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more work.
>>>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you
>>>>> start supporting streams based commands.
>>>>>
>>>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and
>>>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. I
>>>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us.
>>>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility
>>>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on this).
>>>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are
>>>>> more important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>>>       Thanks Adrian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       of course there's a marshalling work under the cover and that is
>>>>>>       reflected into the generated code (specially the accessor
>>>>>>       methods generated from the oneof clause).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       My opinion is that on the client side this could be accepted, as
>>>>>>       long as the API are well defined and documented: application
>>>>>>       developer can build an adhoc decorator on the top if needed. The
>>>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       On the server side (java only) the situation is different:
>>>>>>       protobuf is optimized for streaming not for storing so probably
>>>>>>       a Protostream layer is needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Adrian Nistor
>>>>>>       <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Hi Vittorio,
>>>>>>           thanks for exploring gRPC. It seems like a very elegant
>>>>>>           solution for exposing services. I'll have a look at your PoC
>>>>>>           soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           I feel there are some remarks that need to be made regarding
>>>>>>           gRPC. gRPC is just some nice cheesy topping on top of
>>>>>>           protobuf. Google's implementation of protobuf, to be more
>>>>>>           precise.
>>>>>>           It does not need handwritten marshallers, but the 'No need
>>>>>>           for marshaller' does not accurately describe it. Marshallers
>>>>>>           are needed and are generated under the cover by the library
>>>>>>           and so are the data objects and you are unfortunately forced
>>>>>>           to use them. That's both the good news and the bad news:)
>>>>>>           The whole thing looks very promising and friendly for many
>>>>>>           uses cases, especially for demos and PoCs :))). Nobody wants
>>>>>>           to write those marshallers. But it starts to become a
>>>>>>           nuisance if you want to use your own data objects.
>>>>>>           There is also the ugliness and excessive memory footprint of
>>>>>>           the generated code, which is the reason Infinispan did not
>>>>>>           adopt the protobuf-java library although it did adopt
>>>>>>           protobuf as an encoding format.
>>>>>>           The Protostream library was created as an alternative
>>>>>>           implementation to solve the aforementioned problems with the
>>>>>>           generated code. It solves this by letting the user provide
>>>>>>           their own data objects. And for the marshallers it gives you
>>>>>>           two options: a) write the marshaller yourself (hated), b)
>>>>>>           annotated your data objects and the marshaller gets
>>>>>>           generated (loved). Protostream does not currently support
>>>>>>           service definitions right now but this is something I
>>>>>>           started to investigate recently after Galder asked me if I
>>>>>>           think it's doable. I think I'll only find out after I do it:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           On 05/28/2018 04:15 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>>>>           Hi Infinispan developers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           I'm working on a solution for developers who need to access
>>>>>>>           Infinispan services  through different programming languages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           The focus is not on developing a full featured client, but
>>>>>>>           rather discover the value and the limits of this approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           - is it possible to automatically generate useful clients
>>>>>>>           in different languages?
>>>>>>>           - can that clients interoperate on the same cache with the
>>>>>>>           same data types?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           I came out with a small prototype that I would like to
>>>>>>>           submit to you and on which I would like to gather your
>>>>>>>           impressions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            You can found the project here [1]: is a gRPC-based
>>>>>>>           client/server architecture for Infinispan based on and
>>>>>>>           EmbeddedCache, with very few features exposed atm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Currently the project is nothing more than a poc with the
>>>>>>>           following interesting features:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           - client can be generated in all the grpc supported
>>>>>>>           language: java, go, c++ examples are provided;
>>>>>>>           - the interface is full typed. No need for marshaller and
>>>>>>>           clients build in different language can cooperate on the
>>>>>>>           same cache;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           The second item is my preferred one beacuse it frees the
>>>>>>>           developer from data marshalling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           What do you think about?
>>>>>>>           Sounds interesting?
>>>>>>>           Can you see any flaw?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           There's also a list of issues for the future [2], basically
>>>>>>>           I would like to investigate these questions:
>>>>>>>           How far this architecture can go?
>>>>>>>           Topology, events, queries... how many of the Infinispan
>>>>>>>           features can be fit in a grpc architecture?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Thank you
>>>>>>>           Vittorio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           [1] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc
>>>>>>>           [2] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Red Hat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Milan, Italy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           irc: rigazilla
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>           infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>           [hidden email]
>>>>>>>           <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>           https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Red Hat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Milan, Italy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       irc: rigazilla
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>>       infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>       [hidden email]
>>>>>       <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>       https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev


--
Radim Vansa <[hidden email]>
JBoss Performance Team

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan client/server architecture based on gRPC

Galder Zamarreno


On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:00 PM Radim Vansa <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 05/30/2018 02:53 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 30 May 2018 at 13:26, Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it
>> has to compute it itself.
>> The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be
>> different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could be
>> done on the server, just a thought.
> Unless we want to explore some form of hybrid gRPC which benefits from
> Hot Rod intelligence level 3?

Since Tristan said that gRPC is viable only if the performance is
comparable - I concluded that this involves the smart routing. I was
hoping that gRPC networking layer would provide some hook to specify the
destination.

It does, via SubchannelPicker implementations. It requires key to be sent as HTTP header down the stack so that the SubchannelPicker can extract it.

SubchannelPicker impl can then apply hash on it and decide based on available channels.
 
An alternative would be a proxy hosted on the same node
that would do the routing. 

If we're to replace Hot Rod I was expecting the (generated) gRPC client
to be extensible enough to allow us add client-side features (like near
cache, maybe listeners would need client-side code too) but saving us
most of the hassle with networking and parsing, while providing basic
client in languages we don't embrace without additional cost.

R.

>
> In which case the client will need to compute the hash before it can
> hint the network layer were to connect to.
>
> Thanks,
> Sanne
>
>> On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:
>>> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote:
>>>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder.
>>>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this
>>>> experiment.
>>>>
>>>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we strive
>>>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an interesting
>>>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate
>>>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not
>>>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a
>>>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one
>>>> from google.
>>>>
>>>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on
>>>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of
>>>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based service
>>>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type
>>>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that
>>>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing
>>>> everything down to a byte[].
>>> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for correct
>>> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key and
>>> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the storage
>>> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?).
>>>
>>> Radim
>>>
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The
>>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me."
>>>>>
>>>>>       No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to
>>>>>       re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new
>>>>>       supported language.
>>>>>       Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with Google's
>>>>>       protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can continue
>>>>>       using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or without gRPC.
>>>>>       Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, but
>>>>>       we can add support for that with little effort.
>>>>>
>>>>>       The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod
>>>>>       invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of
>>>>>       implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I
>>>>>       wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied
>>>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>    The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is the
>>>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language
>>>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to implement
>>>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them to
>>>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to
>>>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, not
>>>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations
>>>>> on which to build.
>>>>>
>>>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get
>>>>> different features in is because each client implements its own
>>>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations
>>>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects).
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer right
>>>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and
>>>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient
>>>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster
>>>>> failover...etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>   From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client
>>>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been
>>>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo
>>>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode.
>>>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our issues,
>>>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot Rod
>>>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more work.
>>>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you
>>>>> start supporting streams based commands.
>>>>>
>>>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and
>>>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. I
>>>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us.
>>>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility
>>>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on this).
>>>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are
>>>>> more important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>>>       Thanks Adrian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       of course there's a marshalling work under the cover and that is
>>>>>>       reflected into the generated code (specially the accessor
>>>>>>       methods generated from the oneof clause).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       My opinion is that on the client side this could be accepted, as
>>>>>>       long as the API are well defined and documented: application
>>>>>>       developer can build an adhoc decorator on the top if needed. The
>>>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       On the server side (java only) the situation is different:
>>>>>>       protobuf is optimized for streaming not for storing so probably
>>>>>>       a Protostream layer is needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Adrian Nistor
>>>>>>       <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Hi Vittorio,
>>>>>>           thanks for exploring gRPC. It seems like a very elegant
>>>>>>           solution for exposing services. I'll have a look at your PoC
>>>>>>           soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           I feel there are some remarks that need to be made regarding
>>>>>>           gRPC. gRPC is just some nice cheesy topping on top of
>>>>>>           protobuf. Google's implementation of protobuf, to be more
>>>>>>           precise.
>>>>>>           It does not need handwritten marshallers, but the 'No need
>>>>>>           for marshaller' does not accurately describe it. Marshallers
>>>>>>           are needed and are generated under the cover by the library
>>>>>>           and so are the data objects and you are unfortunately forced
>>>>>>           to use them. That's both the good news and the bad news:)
>>>>>>           The whole thing looks very promising and friendly for many
>>>>>>           uses cases, especially for demos and PoCs :))). Nobody wants
>>>>>>           to write those marshallers. But it starts to become a
>>>>>>           nuisance if you want to use your own data objects.
>>>>>>           There is also the ugliness and excessive memory footprint of
>>>>>>           the generated code, which is the reason Infinispan did not
>>>>>>           adopt the protobuf-java library although it did adopt
>>>>>>           protobuf as an encoding format.
>>>>>>           The Protostream library was created as an alternative
>>>>>>           implementation to solve the aforementioned problems with the
>>>>>>           generated code. It solves this by letting the user provide
>>>>>>           their own data objects. And for the marshallers it gives you
>>>>>>           two options: a) write the marshaller yourself (hated), b)
>>>>>>           annotated your data objects and the marshaller gets
>>>>>>           generated (loved). Protostream does not currently support
>>>>>>           service definitions right now but this is something I
>>>>>>           started to investigate recently after Galder asked me if I
>>>>>>           think it's doable. I think I'll only find out after I do it:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           On 05/28/2018 04:15 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>>>>           Hi Infinispan developers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           I'm working on a solution for developers who need to access
>>>>>>>           Infinispan services  through different programming languages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           The focus is not on developing a full featured client, but
>>>>>>>           rather discover the value and the limits of this approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           - is it possible to automatically generate useful clients
>>>>>>>           in different languages?
>>>>>>>           - can that clients interoperate on the same cache with the
>>>>>>>           same data types?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           I came out with a small prototype that I would like to
>>>>>>>           submit to you and on which I would like to gather your
>>>>>>>           impressions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            You can found the project here [1]: is a gRPC-based
>>>>>>>           client/server architecture for Infinispan based on and
>>>>>>>           EmbeddedCache, with very few features exposed atm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Currently the project is nothing more than a poc with the
>>>>>>>           following interesting features:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           - client can be generated in all the grpc supported
>>>>>>>           language: java, go, c++ examples are provided;
>>>>>>>           - the interface is full typed. No need for marshaller and
>>>>>>>           clients build in different language can cooperate on the
>>>>>>>           same cache;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           The second item is my preferred one beacuse it frees the
>>>>>>>           developer from data marshalling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           What do you think about?
>>>>>>>           Sounds interesting?
>>>>>>>           Can you see any flaw?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           There's also a list of issues for the future [2], basically
>>>>>>>           I would like to investigate these questions:
>>>>>>>           How far this architecture can go?
>>>>>>>           Topology, events, queries... how many of the Infinispan
>>>>>>>           features can be fit in a grpc architecture?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Thank you
>>>>>>>           Vittorio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           [1] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc
>>>>>>>           [2] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Red Hat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Milan, Italy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           irc: rigazilla
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>           infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>           [hidden email]
>>>>>>>           <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>           https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Red Hat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Milan, Italy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       irc: rigazilla
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>>       infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>       [hidden email]
>>>>>       <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>       https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev


--
Radim Vansa <[hidden email]>
JBoss Performance Team

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan client/server architecture based on gRPC

Manik Surtani-3
Hello everyone! (Wow, it's been a while since I dropped by and said hello... )

Super-interesting discussion.

Adrian: "What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we strive for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an interesting approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one from google."

This is spot-on, and where I see value in gRPC being incorporated into Infinispan: making use of open(-ish) standards of RPC communication and applying that to how we do client/server. Good discussion on handling payload types in the interface definition. I've made use of some of the ideas discussed here when creating a proto-defined IDL to look up ... more serialized proto definitions for given types! Keen to see what your PoC looks like.

- M


On Wed, 30 May 2018 at 08:19 Galder Zamarreno <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:00 PM Radim Vansa <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 05/30/2018 02:53 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 30 May 2018 at 13:26, Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it
>> has to compute it itself.
>> The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be
>> different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could be
>> done on the server, just a thought.
> Unless we want to explore some form of hybrid gRPC which benefits from
> Hot Rod intelligence level 3?

Since Tristan said that gRPC is viable only if the performance is
comparable - I concluded that this involves the smart routing. I was
hoping that gRPC networking layer would provide some hook to specify the
destination.

It does, via SubchannelPicker implementations. It requires key to be sent as HTTP header down the stack so that the SubchannelPicker can extract it.

SubchannelPicker impl can then apply hash on it and decide based on available channels.
 
An alternative would be a proxy hosted on the same node
that would do the routing. 

If we're to replace Hot Rod I was expecting the (generated) gRPC client
to be extensible enough to allow us add client-side features (like near
cache, maybe listeners would need client-side code too) but saving us
most of the hassle with networking and parsing, while providing basic
client in languages we don't embrace without additional cost.

R.

>
> In which case the client will need to compute the hash before it can
> hint the network layer were to connect to.
>
> Thanks,
> Sanne
>
>> On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:
>>> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote:
>>>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder.
>>>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this
>>>> experiment.
>>>>
>>>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we strive
>>>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an interesting
>>>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate
>>>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not
>>>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a
>>>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one
>>>> from google.
>>>>
>>>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on
>>>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of
>>>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based service
>>>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type
>>>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that
>>>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing
>>>> everything down to a byte[].
>>> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for correct
>>> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key and
>>> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the storage
>>> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?).
>>>
>>> Radim
>>>
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The
>>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me."
>>>>>
>>>>>       No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to
>>>>>       re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new
>>>>>       supported language.
>>>>>       Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with Google's
>>>>>       protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can continue
>>>>>       using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or without gRPC.
>>>>>       Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does, but
>>>>>       we can add support for that with little effort.
>>>>>
>>>>>       The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod
>>>>>       invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of
>>>>>       implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I
>>>>>       wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied
>>>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>    The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is the
>>>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language
>>>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to implement
>>>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them to
>>>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to
>>>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted, not
>>>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations
>>>>> on which to build.
>>>>>
>>>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get
>>>>> different features in is because each client implements its own
>>>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations
>>>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects).
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer right
>>>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and
>>>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient
>>>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster
>>>>> failover...etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>   From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client
>>>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been
>>>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo
>>>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode.
>>>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our issues,
>>>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot Rod
>>>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more work.
>>>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you
>>>>> start supporting streams based commands.
>>>>>
>>>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and
>>>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us. I
>>>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us.
>>>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility
>>>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on this).
>>>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are
>>>>> more important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>>>       Thanks Adrian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       of course there's a marshalling work under the cover and that is
>>>>>>       reflected into the generated code (specially the accessor
>>>>>>       methods generated from the oneof clause).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       My opinion is that on the client side this could be accepted, as
>>>>>>       long as the API are well defined and documented: application
>>>>>>       developer can build an adhoc decorator on the top if needed. The
>>>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent for
>>>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       On the server side (java only) the situation is different:
>>>>>>       protobuf is optimized for streaming not for storing so probably
>>>>>>       a Protostream layer is needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Adrian Nistor
>>>>>>       <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Hi Vittorio,
>>>>>>           thanks for exploring gRPC. It seems like a very elegant
>>>>>>           solution for exposing services. I'll have a look at your PoC
>>>>>>           soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           I feel there are some remarks that need to be made regarding
>>>>>>           gRPC. gRPC is just some nice cheesy topping on top of
>>>>>>           protobuf. Google's implementation of protobuf, to be more
>>>>>>           precise.
>>>>>>           It does not need handwritten marshallers, but the 'No need
>>>>>>           for marshaller' does not accurately describe it. Marshallers
>>>>>>           are needed and are generated under the cover by the library
>>>>>>           and so are the data objects and you are unfortunately forced
>>>>>>           to use them. That's both the good news and the bad news:)
>>>>>>           The whole thing looks very promising and friendly for many
>>>>>>           uses cases, especially for demos and PoCs :))). Nobody wants
>>>>>>           to write those marshallers. But it starts to become a
>>>>>>           nuisance if you want to use your own data objects.
>>>>>>           There is also the ugliness and excessive memory footprint of
>>>>>>           the generated code, which is the reason Infinispan did not
>>>>>>           adopt the protobuf-java library although it did adopt
>>>>>>           protobuf as an encoding format.
>>>>>>           The Protostream library was created as an alternative
>>>>>>           implementation to solve the aforementioned problems with the
>>>>>>           generated code. It solves this by letting the user provide
>>>>>>           their own data objects. And for the marshallers it gives you
>>>>>>           two options: a) write the marshaller yourself (hated), b)
>>>>>>           annotated your data objects and the marshaller gets
>>>>>>           generated (loved). Protostream does not currently support
>>>>>>           service definitions right now but this is something I
>>>>>>           started to investigate recently after Galder asked me if I
>>>>>>           think it's doable. I think I'll only find out after I do it:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           On 05/28/2018 04:15 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>>>>>>           Hi Infinispan developers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           I'm working on a solution for developers who need to access
>>>>>>>           Infinispan services  through different programming languages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           The focus is not on developing a full featured client, but
>>>>>>>           rather discover the value and the limits of this approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           - is it possible to automatically generate useful clients
>>>>>>>           in different languages?
>>>>>>>           - can that clients interoperate on the same cache with the
>>>>>>>           same data types?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           I came out with a small prototype that I would like to
>>>>>>>           submit to you and on which I would like to gather your
>>>>>>>           impressions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            You can found the project here [1]: is a gRPC-based
>>>>>>>           client/server architecture for Infinispan based on and
>>>>>>>           EmbeddedCache, with very few features exposed atm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Currently the project is nothing more than a poc with the
>>>>>>>           following interesting features:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           - client can be generated in all the grpc supported
>>>>>>>           language: java, go, c++ examples are provided;
>>>>>>>           - the interface is full typed. No need for marshaller and
>>>>>>>           clients build in different language can cooperate on the
>>>>>>>           same cache;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           The second item is my preferred one beacuse it frees the
>>>>>>>           developer from data marshalling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           What do you think about?
>>>>>>>           Sounds interesting?
>>>>>>>           Can you see any flaw?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           There's also a list of issues for the future [2], basically
>>>>>>>           I would like to investigate these questions:
>>>>>>>           How far this architecture can go?
>>>>>>>           Topology, events, queries... how many of the Infinispan
>>>>>>>           features can be fit in a grpc architecture?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Thank you
>>>>>>>           Vittorio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           [1] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc
>>>>>>>           [2] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Red Hat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Milan, Italy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           irc: rigazilla
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>           infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>           [hidden email]
>>>>>>>           <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>           https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Vittorio Rigamonti
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Red Hat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Milan, Italy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       irc: rigazilla
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>>       infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>       [hidden email]
>>>>>       <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>       https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev


--
Radim Vansa <[hidden email]>
JBoss Performance Team

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan client/server architecture based on gRPC

Sanne Grinovero-3
Thanks Manik! Great to hear some feedback from you, especially as you
have way more experience with gRPC.

Beyond helping to develop (and maintain!) clients for a wider range of
programming languages - it would also help to provide both a
"traditional" and a non-blocking client for each such language, while
having to maintain just an async server implementation.

Sanne

On 6 June 2018 at 07:13, Manik Surtani <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello everyone! (Wow, it's been a while since I dropped by and said hello...
> )
>
> Super-interesting discussion.
>
> Adrian: "What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we
> strive for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an
> interesting approach that would make it possible for a third party to
> generate their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not
> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a different
> grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one from google."
>
> This is spot-on, and where I see value in gRPC being incorporated into
> Infinispan: making use of open(-ish) standards of RPC communication and
> applying that to how we do client/server. Good discussion on handling
> payload types in the interface definition. I've made use of some of the
> ideas discussed here when creating a proto-defined IDL to look up ... more
> serialized proto definitions for given types! Keen to see what your PoC
> looks like.
>
> - M
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2018 at 08:19 Galder Zamarreno <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:00 PM Radim Vansa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2018 02:53 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>> > On 30 May 2018 at 13:26, Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >> Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it
>>> >> has to compute it itself.
>>> >> The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be
>>> >> different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could
>>> >> be
>>> >> done on the server, just a thought.
>>> > Unless we want to explore some form of hybrid gRPC which benefits from
>>> > Hot Rod intelligence level 3?
>>>
>>> Since Tristan said that gRPC is viable only if the performance is
>>> comparable - I concluded that this involves the smart routing. I was
>>> hoping that gRPC networking layer would provide some hook to specify the
>>> destination.
>>
>>
>> It does, via SubchannelPicker implementations. It requires key to be sent
>> as HTTP header down the stack so that the SubchannelPicker can extract it.
>>
>> SubchannelPicker impl can then apply hash on it and decide based on
>> available channels.
>>
>>>
>>> An alternative would be a proxy hosted on the same node
>>> that would do the routing.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we're to replace Hot Rod I was expecting the (generated) gRPC client
>>> to be extensible enough to allow us add client-side features (like near
>>> cache, maybe listeners would need client-side code too) but saving us
>>> most of the hassle with networking and parsing, while providing basic
>>> client in languages we don't embrace without additional cost.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > In which case the client will need to compute the hash before it can
>>> > hint the network layer were to connect to.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Sanne
>>> >
>>> >> On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:
>>> >>> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote:
>>> >>>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder.
>>> >>>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this
>>> >>>> experiment.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we
>>> >>>> strive
>>> >>>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an
>>> >>>> interesting
>>> >>>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate
>>> >>>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not
>>> >>>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a
>>> >>>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one
>>> >>>> from google.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on
>>> >>>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of
>>> >>>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based
>>> >>>> service
>>> >>>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type
>>> >>>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that
>>> >>>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing
>>> >>>> everything down to a byte[].
>>> >>> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for
>>> >>> correct
>>> >>> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the
>>> >>> storage
>>> >>> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Radim
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Adrian
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]
>>> >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The
>>> >>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent
>>> >>>>> for
>>> >>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible
>>> >>>>> to me."
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to
>>> >>>>>       re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new
>>> >>>>>       supported language.
>>> >>>>>       Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with
>>> >>>>> Google's
>>> >>>>>       protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can
>>> >>>>> continue
>>> >>>>>       using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or
>>> >>>>> without gRPC.
>>> >>>>>       Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does,
>>> >>>>> but
>>> >>>>>       we can add support for that with little effort.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod
>>> >>>>>       invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of
>>> >>>>>       implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I
>>> >>>>>       wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this
>>> >>>>> thread.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied
>>> >>>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>    The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is
>>> >>>>>> the
>>> >>>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language
>>> >>>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to
>>> >>>>> implement
>>> >>>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them
>>> >>>>> to
>>> >>>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to
>>> >>>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted,
>>> >>>>> not
>>> >>>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations
>>> >>>>> on which to build.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get
>>> >>>>> different features in is because each client implements its own
>>> >>>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations
>>> >>>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects).
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer
>>> >>>>> right
>>> >>>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and
>>> >>>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient
>>> >>>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster
>>> >>>>> failover...etc.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>   From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client
>>> >>>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been
>>> >>>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo
>>> >>>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode.
>>> >>>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our
>>> >>>>> issues,
>>> >>>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot
>>> >>>>> Rod
>>> >>>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more
>>> >>>>> work.
>>> >>>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you
>>> >>>>> start supporting streams based commands.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and
>>> >>>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us.
>>> >>>>> I
>>> >>>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us.
>>> >>>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility
>>> >>>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on
>>> >>>>> this).
>>> >>>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are
>>> >>>>> more important.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Cheers
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       Adrian
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>> >>>>>>       Thanks Adrian,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       of course there's a marshalling work under the cover and
>>> >>>>>> that is
>>> >>>>>>       reflected into the generated code (specially the accessor
>>> >>>>>>       methods generated from the oneof clause).
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       My opinion is that on the client side this could be
>>> >>>>>> accepted, as
>>> >>>>>>       long as the API are well defined and documented: application
>>> >>>>>>       developer can build an adhoc decorator on the top if needed.
>>> >>>>>> The
>>> >>>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent
>>> >>>>>> for
>>> >>>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible
>>> >>>>>> to me.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       On the server side (java only) the situation is different:
>>> >>>>>>       protobuf is optimized for streaming not for storing so
>>> >>>>>> probably
>>> >>>>>>       a Protostream layer is needed.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Adrian Nistor
>>> >>>>>>       <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>           Hi Vittorio,
>>> >>>>>>           thanks for exploring gRPC. It seems like a very elegant
>>> >>>>>>           solution for exposing services. I'll have a look at your
>>> >>>>>> PoC
>>> >>>>>>           soon.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>           I feel there are some remarks that need to be made
>>> >>>>>> regarding
>>> >>>>>>           gRPC. gRPC is just some nice cheesy topping on top of
>>> >>>>>>           protobuf. Google's implementation of protobuf, to be
>>> >>>>>> more
>>> >>>>>>           precise.
>>> >>>>>>           It does not need handwritten marshallers, but the 'No
>>> >>>>>> need
>>> >>>>>>           for marshaller' does not accurately describe it.
>>> >>>>>> Marshallers
>>> >>>>>>           are needed and are generated under the cover by the
>>> >>>>>> library
>>> >>>>>>           and so are the data objects and you are unfortunately
>>> >>>>>> forced
>>> >>>>>>           to use them. That's both the good news and the bad
>>> >>>>>> news:)
>>> >>>>>>           The whole thing looks very promising and friendly for
>>> >>>>>> many
>>> >>>>>>           uses cases, especially for demos and PoCs :))). Nobody
>>> >>>>>> wants
>>> >>>>>>           to write those marshallers. But it starts to become a
>>> >>>>>>           nuisance if you want to use your own data objects.
>>> >>>>>>           There is also the ugliness and excessive memory
>>> >>>>>> footprint of
>>> >>>>>>           the generated code, which is the reason Infinispan did
>>> >>>>>> not
>>> >>>>>>           adopt the protobuf-java library although it did adopt
>>> >>>>>>           protobuf as an encoding format.
>>> >>>>>>           The Protostream library was created as an alternative
>>> >>>>>>           implementation to solve the aforementioned problems with
>>> >>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>           generated code. It solves this by letting the user
>>> >>>>>> provide
>>> >>>>>>           their own data objects. And for the marshallers it gives
>>> >>>>>> you
>>> >>>>>>           two options: a) write the marshaller yourself (hated),
>>> >>>>>> b)
>>> >>>>>>           annotated your data objects and the marshaller gets
>>> >>>>>>           generated (loved). Protostream does not currently
>>> >>>>>> support
>>> >>>>>>           service definitions right now but this is something I
>>> >>>>>>           started to investigate recently after Galder asked me if
>>> >>>>>> I
>>> >>>>>>           think it's doable. I think I'll only find out after I do
>>> >>>>>> it:)
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>           Adrian
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>           On 05/28/2018 04:15 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>           Hi Infinispan developers,
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           I'm working on a solution for developers who need to
>>> >>>>>>> access
>>> >>>>>>>           Infinispan services  through different programming
>>> >>>>>>> languages.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           The focus is not on developing a full featured client,
>>> >>>>>>> but
>>> >>>>>>>           rather discover the value and the limits of this
>>> >>>>>>> approach.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           - is it possible to automatically generate useful
>>> >>>>>>> clients
>>> >>>>>>>           in different languages?
>>> >>>>>>>           - can that clients interoperate on the same cache with
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>           same data types?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           I came out with a small prototype that I would like to
>>> >>>>>>>           submit to you and on which I would like to gather your
>>> >>>>>>>           impressions.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>            You can found the project here [1]: is a gRPC-based
>>> >>>>>>>           client/server architecture for Infinispan based on and
>>> >>>>>>>           EmbeddedCache, with very few features exposed atm.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Currently the project is nothing more than a poc with
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>           following interesting features:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           - client can be generated in all the grpc supported
>>> >>>>>>>           language: java, go, c++ examples are provided;
>>> >>>>>>>           - the interface is full typed. No need for marshaller
>>> >>>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>           clients build in different language can cooperate on
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>           same cache;
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           The second item is my preferred one beacuse it frees
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>           developer from data marshalling.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           What do you think about?
>>> >>>>>>>           Sounds interesting?
>>> >>>>>>>           Can you see any flaw?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           There's also a list of issues for the future [2],
>>> >>>>>>> basically
>>> >>>>>>>           I would like to investigate these questions:
>>> >>>>>>>           How far this architecture can go?
>>> >>>>>>>           Topology, events, queries... how many of the Infinispan
>>> >>>>>>>           features can be fit in a grpc architecture?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Thank you
>>> >>>>>>>           Vittorio
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           [1] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc
>>> >>>>>>>           [2] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           --
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Vittorio Rigamonti
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Senior Software Engineer
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Red Hat
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           <https://www.redhat.com>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Milan, Italy
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           irc: rigazilla
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           <https://red.ht/sig>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>           infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>           [hidden email]
>>> >>>>>>>           <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>>           https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       --
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       Vittorio Rigamonti
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       Senior Software Engineer
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       Red Hat
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       <https://www.redhat.com>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       Milan, Italy
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       irc: rigazilla
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       <https://red.ht/sig>
>>> >>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>       infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>>       [hidden email]
>>> >>>>>       <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>       https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>> [hidden email]
>>> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >>>> [hidden email]
>>> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >> [hidden email]
>>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Radim Vansa <[hidden email]>
>>> JBoss Performance Team
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan client/server architecture based on gRPC

Galder Zamarreno
@Manik, great to hear from you! I also agree that gRPC brings a lot of benefits to our client/server architecture. In fact, I'd personally be happy to trade off "some" performance for all the benefits it brings. 

@Adrian I think you hit the nail with this: "...make it possible for a third party to generate their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not already offer support...". We didn't consider this in 2010 when we first thought of using Google Protobuf to define Hot Rod protocol:


That discussion ended with:

> Manik and I were discussing this last week and came to the conclusion that as suggested by David on his 1st paragraph, using it would be tying  us up to protobufs and its limitations, including the lack of support for other languages such as C#.

That wasn't the only reason but it was one of the reasons. As Adrian rightly points out, we could just have gone with it and then implement a missing lang ourselves. That wasn't the only reason though, as I said in the Javaland presentation on the topic, back in 2010, Google didn't have much street credibility with open source libraries. No one knew what would happen to Protobuf, whether it'd be open sourced and left to die... or would evolve. Hindsight is a wonderful thing ;)

@Sanne, I've forgotten about that but yes! That's a very nice added feature too. You can decide whether you have a sync or async client on the spot. Both are generated. Also the "stream" keyboard for streaming multiple elements is a nice feature for things like getAll

Cheers
Galder


On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:44 PM Sanne Grinovero <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Manik! Great to hear some feedback from you, especially as you
have way more experience with gRPC.

Beyond helping to develop (and maintain!) clients for a wider range of
programming languages - it would also help to provide both a
"traditional" and a non-blocking client for each such language, while
having to maintain just an async server implementation.

Sanne

On 6 June 2018 at 07:13, Manik Surtani <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello everyone! (Wow, it's been a while since I dropped by and said hello...
> )
>
> Super-interesting discussion.
>
> Adrian: "What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we
> strive for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an
> interesting approach that would make it possible for a third party to
> generate their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not
> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a different
> grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one from google."
>
> This is spot-on, and where I see value in gRPC being incorporated into
> Infinispan: making use of open(-ish) standards of RPC communication and
> applying that to how we do client/server. Good discussion on handling
> payload types in the interface definition. I've made use of some of the
> ideas discussed here when creating a proto-defined IDL to look up ... more
> serialized proto definitions for given types! Keen to see what your PoC
> looks like.
>
> - M
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2018 at 08:19 Galder Zamarreno <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:00 PM Radim Vansa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2018 02:53 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>> > On 30 May 2018 at 13:26, Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >> Yest, the client needs that hash but that does not necessarily mean it
>>> >> has to compute it itself.
>>> >> The hash should be applied to the storage format which might be
>>> >> different from the format the client sees. So hash computation could
>>> >> be
>>> >> done on the server, just a thought.
>>> > Unless we want to explore some form of hybrid gRPC which benefits from
>>> > Hot Rod intelligence level 3?
>>>
>>> Since Tristan said that gRPC is viable only if the performance is
>>> comparable - I concluded that this involves the smart routing. I was
>>> hoping that gRPC networking layer would provide some hook to specify the
>>> destination.
>>
>>
>> It does, via SubchannelPicker implementations. It requires key to be sent
>> as HTTP header down the stack so that the SubchannelPicker can extract it.
>>
>> SubchannelPicker impl can then apply hash on it and decide based on
>> available channels.
>>
>>>
>>> An alternative would be a proxy hosted on the same node
>>> that would do the routing.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we're to replace Hot Rod I was expecting the (generated) gRPC client
>>> to be extensible enough to allow us add client-side features (like near
>>> cache, maybe listeners would need client-side code too) but saving us
>>> most of the hassle with networking and parsing, while providing basic
>>> client in languages we don't embrace without additional cost.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > In which case the client will need to compute the hash before it can
>>> > hint the network layer were to connect to.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Sanne
>>> >
>>> >> On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Radim Vansa wrote:
>>> >>> On 05/30/2018 12:46 PM, Adrian Nistor wrote:
>>> >>>> Thanks for clarifying this Galder.
>>> >>>> Yes, the network layer is indeed the culprit and the purpose of this
>>> >>>> experiment.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> What is the approach you envision regarding the IDL? Should we
>>> >>>> strive
>>> >>>> for a pure IDL definition of the service? That could be an
>>> >>>> interesting
>>> >>>> approach that would make it possible for a third party to generate
>>> >>>> their own infinispan grpc client in any new language that we do not
>>> >>>> already offer support, just based on the IDL. And maybe using a
>>> >>>> different grpc implementation if they do not find suitable the one
>>> >>>> from google.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I was not suggesting we should do type transformation or anything on
>>> >>>> the client side that would require an extra layer of code on top of
>>> >>>> what grpc generates for the client, so maybe a pure IDL based
>>> >>>> service
>>> >>>> definition would indeed be possible, without extra helpers. No type
>>> >>>> transformation, just type information. Exposing the type info that
>>> >>>> comes from the server would be enough, a lot better than dumbing
>>> >>>> everything down to a byte[].
>>> >>> I may be wrong but key transformation on client is necessary for
>>> >>> correct
>>> >>> hash-aware routing, isn't it? We need to get byte array for each key
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> apply murmur hash there (IIUC even when we use protobuf as the
>>> >>> storage
>>> >>> format, segment is based on the raw protobuf bytes, right?).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Radim
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Adrian
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 05/30/2018 12:16 PM, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM Adrian Nistor <[hidden email]
>>> >>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       Vittorio, a few remarks regarding your statement "...The
>>> >>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent
>>> >>>>> for
>>> >>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible
>>> >>>>> to me."
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       No way! That's a big misunderstanding. We do not need to
>>> >>>>>       re-implement the protostream library in C/C++/C# or any new
>>> >>>>>       supported language.
>>> >>>>>       Protostream is just for Java and it is compatible with
>>> >>>>> Google's
>>> >>>>>       protobuf lib we already use in the other clients. We can
>>> >>>>> continue
>>> >>>>>       using Google's protobuf lib for these clients, with or
>>> >>>>> without gRPC.
>>> >>>>>       Protostream does not handle protobuf services as gRPC does,
>>> >>>>> but
>>> >>>>>       we can add support for that with little effort.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       The real problem here is if we want to replace our hot rod
>>> >>>>>       invocation protocol with gRPC to save on the effort of
>>> >>>>>       implementing and maintaining hot rod in all those clients. I
>>> >>>>>       wonder why the obvious question is being avoided in this
>>> >>>>> thread.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> ^ It is not being avoided. I stated it quite clearly when I replied
>>> >>>>> but maybe not with enough detail. So, I said:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>    The biggest problem I see in our client/server architecture is
>>> >>>>>> the
>>> >>>>> ability to quickly deliver features/APIs across multiple language
>>> >>>>> clients. Both Vittorio and I have seen how long it takes to
>>> >>>>> implement
>>> >>>>> all the different features available in Java client and port them
>>> >>>>> to
>>> >>>>> Node.js, C/C++/C#...etc. This effort lead by Vittorio is trying to
>>> >>>>> improve on that by having some of that work done for us. Granted,
>>> >>>>> not
>>> >>>>> all of it will be done, but it should give us some good foundations
>>> >>>>> on which to build.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> To expand on it a bit further: the reason it takes us longer to get
>>> >>>>> different features in is because each client implements its own
>>> >>>>> network layer, parses the protocol and does type transformations
>>> >>>>> (between byte[] and whatever the client expects).
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> IMO, the most costly things there are getting the network layer
>>> >>>>> right
>>> >>>>> (from experience with Node.js, it has taken a while to do so) and
>>> >>>>> parsing work (not only parsing itself, but doing it in a efficient
>>> >>>>> way). Network layer also includes load balancing, failover, cluster
>>> >>>>> failover...etc.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>   From past experience, transforming from byte[] to what the client
>>> >>>>> expects has never really been very problematic for me. What's been
>>> >>>>> difficult here is coming up with encoding architecture that Gustavo
>>> >>>>> lead, whose aim was to improve on the initial compatibility mode.
>>> >>>>> But, with that now clear, understood and proven to solve our
>>> >>>>> issues,
>>> >>>>> the rest in this area should be fairly straightforward IMO.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Type transformation, once done, is a constant. As we add more Hot
>>> >>>>> Rod
>>> >>>>> operations, it's mostly the parsing that starts to become more
>>> >>>>> work.
>>> >>>>> Network can also become more work if instead of RPC commands you
>>> >>>>> start supporting streams based commands.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> gRPC solves the network (FYI: with key as HTTP header and
>>> >>>>> SubchannelPicker you can do hash-aware routing) and parsing for us.
>>> >>>>> I
>>> >>>>> don't see the need for it to solve our type transformations for us.
>>> >>>>> If it does it, great, but does it support our compatibility
>>> >>>>> requirements? (I had already told Vittorio to check Gustavo on
>>> >>>>> this).
>>> >>>>> Type transformation is a lower prio for me, network and parsing are
>>> >>>>> more important.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hope this clarifies better my POV.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Cheers
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       Adrian
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>       On 05/29/2018 03:45 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>> >>>>>>       Thanks Adrian,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       of course there's a marshalling work under the cover and
>>> >>>>>> that is
>>> >>>>>>       reflected into the generated code (specially the accessor
>>> >>>>>>       methods generated from the oneof clause).
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       My opinion is that on the client side this could be
>>> >>>>>> accepted, as
>>> >>>>>>       long as the API are well defined and documented: application
>>> >>>>>>       developer can build an adhoc decorator on the top if needed.
>>> >>>>>> The
>>> >>>>>>       alternative to this is to develop a protostream equivalent
>>> >>>>>> for
>>> >>>>>>       each supported language and it doesn't seem really feasible
>>> >>>>>> to me.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       On the server side (java only) the situation is different:
>>> >>>>>>       protobuf is optimized for streaming not for storing so
>>> >>>>>> probably
>>> >>>>>>       a Protostream layer is needed.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Adrian Nistor
>>> >>>>>>       <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>           Hi Vittorio,
>>> >>>>>>           thanks for exploring gRPC. It seems like a very elegant
>>> >>>>>>           solution for exposing services. I'll have a look at your
>>> >>>>>> PoC
>>> >>>>>>           soon.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>           I feel there are some remarks that need to be made
>>> >>>>>> regarding
>>> >>>>>>           gRPC. gRPC is just some nice cheesy topping on top of
>>> >>>>>>           protobuf. Google's implementation of protobuf, to be
>>> >>>>>> more
>>> >>>>>>           precise.
>>> >>>>>>           It does not need handwritten marshallers, but the 'No
>>> >>>>>> need
>>> >>>>>>           for marshaller' does not accurately describe it.
>>> >>>>>> Marshallers
>>> >>>>>>           are needed and are generated under the cover by the
>>> >>>>>> library
>>> >>>>>>           and so are the data objects and you are unfortunately
>>> >>>>>> forced
>>> >>>>>>           to use them. That's both the good news and the bad
>>> >>>>>> news:)
>>> >>>>>>           The whole thing looks very promising and friendly for
>>> >>>>>> many
>>> >>>>>>           uses cases, especially for demos and PoCs :))). Nobody
>>> >>>>>> wants
>>> >>>>>>           to write those marshallers. But it starts to become a
>>> >>>>>>           nuisance if you want to use your own data objects.
>>> >>>>>>           There is also the ugliness and excessive memory
>>> >>>>>> footprint of
>>> >>>>>>           the generated code, which is the reason Infinispan did
>>> >>>>>> not
>>> >>>>>>           adopt the protobuf-java library although it did adopt
>>> >>>>>>           protobuf as an encoding format.
>>> >>>>>>           The Protostream library was created as an alternative
>>> >>>>>>           implementation to solve the aforementioned problems with
>>> >>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>           generated code. It solves this by letting the user
>>> >>>>>> provide
>>> >>>>>>           their own data objects. And for the marshallers it gives
>>> >>>>>> you
>>> >>>>>>           two options: a) write the marshaller yourself (hated),
>>> >>>>>> b)
>>> >>>>>>           annotated your data objects and the marshaller gets
>>> >>>>>>           generated (loved). Protostream does not currently
>>> >>>>>> support
>>> >>>>>>           service definitions right now but this is something I
>>> >>>>>>           started to investigate recently after Galder asked me if
>>> >>>>>> I
>>> >>>>>>           think it's doable. I think I'll only find out after I do
>>> >>>>>> it:)
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>           Adrian
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>           On 05/28/2018 04:15 PM, Vittorio Rigamonti wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>           Hi Infinispan developers,
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           I'm working on a solution for developers who need to
>>> >>>>>>> access
>>> >>>>>>>           Infinispan services  through different programming
>>> >>>>>>> languages.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           The focus is not on developing a full featured client,
>>> >>>>>>> but
>>> >>>>>>>           rather discover the value and the limits of this
>>> >>>>>>> approach.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           - is it possible to automatically generate useful
>>> >>>>>>> clients
>>> >>>>>>>           in different languages?
>>> >>>>>>>           - can that clients interoperate on the same cache with
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>           same data types?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           I came out with a small prototype that I would like to
>>> >>>>>>>           submit to you and on which I would like to gather your
>>> >>>>>>>           impressions.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>            You can found the project here [1]: is a gRPC-based
>>> >>>>>>>           client/server architecture for Infinispan based on and
>>> >>>>>>>           EmbeddedCache, with very few features exposed atm.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Currently the project is nothing more than a poc with
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>           following interesting features:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           - client can be generated in all the grpc supported
>>> >>>>>>>           language: java, go, c++ examples are provided;
>>> >>>>>>>           - the interface is full typed. No need for marshaller
>>> >>>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>           clients build in different language can cooperate on
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>           same cache;
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           The second item is my preferred one beacuse it frees
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>           developer from data marshalling.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           What do you think about?
>>> >>>>>>>           Sounds interesting?
>>> >>>>>>>           Can you see any flaw?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           There's also a list of issues for the future [2],
>>> >>>>>>> basically
>>> >>>>>>>           I would like to investigate these questions:
>>> >>>>>>>           How far this architecture can go?
>>> >>>>>>>           Topology, events, queries... how many of the Infinispan
>>> >>>>>>>           features can be fit in a grpc architecture?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Thank you
>>> >>>>>>>           Vittorio
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           [1] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc
>>> >>>>>>>           [2] https://github.com/rigazilla/ispn-grpc/issues
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           --
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Vittorio Rigamonti
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Senior Software Engineer
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Red Hat
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           <https://www.redhat.com>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           Milan, Italy
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           irc: rigazilla
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           <https://red.ht/sig>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>           _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>           infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>           [hidden email]
>>> >>>>>>>           <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>>           https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       --
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       Vittorio Rigamonti
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       Senior Software Engineer
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       Red Hat
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       <https://www.redhat.com>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       Milan, Italy
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       irc: rigazilla
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>       <https://red.ht/sig>
>>> >>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>       infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>>       [hidden email]
>>> >>>>>       <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >>>>>       https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>> [hidden email]
>>> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >>>> [hidden email]
>>> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> >> [hidden email]
>>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Radim Vansa <[hidden email]>
>>> JBoss Performance Team
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
12