I have a meeting in 20 min which is estimated to end 1pm PST, so I'll let you know once it is over.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > Alex, sure we can have a call. I’m in the office till 2 pm PST today. > Send the meeting invitation to me and Alex. > > From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 at 11:33 AM > > To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> > Cc: Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy < > murali.re...@citrix.com>, Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, " > dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups > > I think I forgot to mention this, but I think we should talk with Alex > Huang also because you need his approval. > So let me know when you guys are available and let's just stop sending > emails back and forth. > > Thanks > Alex Ough > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com>wrote: > >> Alena, >> >> I think we should talk, so please let me know when you're available. >> >> Thanks >> Alex Ough >> >> >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> Alex, we do understand how “Full Scan” works and we know that your >>> component/other components using Full Scan, should be able to distinguish >>> whether the event was generated locally or by another region. >>> >>> Changing the event by enhancing it with “Local” flag is not a desired >>> solution as its very specific to your feature, and we should never modify >>> the CS code just to satisfy only a certain plugin/service needs. The same >>> applies to introducing another method w/o event generation. Both solutions >>> are incorrect, and I’m against putting them to the CS. >>> >>> Here are the rules that should apply to account/domain/user changes on >>> the CS side: >>> >>> >>> 1. The event should be generated regardless of who makes the call >>> 2. The event should be light weight and contain the minimum details >>> – object id/uuid/status. If we let third party components to enhance the >>> events, they would grow exponentially and certain details would make >>> sense >>> just to specific plugin. So no changes to the event object unless its >>> something generic and would make sense for all the subscribers. >>> 3. If subscriber needs to get more details about the object – >>> account/domain/user – he needs to request those details by calling >>> listAccount/listDomains/listUsers API after getting the event. And object >>> itself should give you information about: >>> >>> >>> - Latest updates >>> - Who performed the latest update – which region. >>> >>> So the solution for your plugin would be as Alex Huang suggested >>> originally – add extra field to account/domain/user object defining who did >>> the update. Copying his suggestion below: >>> >>> "Now the detail is in how do we know if an account is created or >>> propagated. For that, it can be done in a number of ways. I’m open to >>> which method. I would suggest that we add two fields to account: >>> origination region and original uuid. The create account API takes an >>> optional fields for the origination region and origination account uuid. >>> If these two parameters are not set in the API, the API set the >>> origination region to the current region and the original uuid to the uuid >>> of the account. " >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alena. >>> >>> From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>> Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 at 6:44 AM >>> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>> >>> Cc: Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy < >>> murali.re...@citrix.com>, Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, " >>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>> >>> Alena/Alex Hwang, >>> >>> I totally understand your concerns, but I'm afraid you guys don't seem >>> to understand how the 'Full scan' works. >>> If I understood correctly, Alex Hwang's suggestion does NOT work because >>> it is NOT the matter of propagation. >>> The event subscribers that processes the Full Scan needs to discard all >>> events even if they have the region value of 'Local'. >>> >>> So to resolve this issue, >>> 1. The methods to manage the domain/account/user resources needs to send >>> events that include a kind of boolean flag that notify the 'Full Scan' >>> subscribers to discard the events even if the region value is 'Local' >>> 2. To add that flag into their events, the methods should have >>> additional input parameter for the flag value the caller can assign along >>> with the region input param value of null >>> 3. Then what is the difference with having another method not to >>> generate event? >>> >>> Let me know if I'm missing any. >>> Thanks >>> Alex Ough >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Alex, how do you know that the data is useless? Only the recipient >>>> can make this judgement. In your case you know that the recipient – your >>>> local region – doesn’t need this data, but you can’t make this call on >>>> behalf of everybody else. Example of the possible scenario: somebody wants >>>> to perform user’s update once corresponding account gets updated, within >>>> the same region. And they rely on in-memory bus to catch updateAccount >>>> event in order to execute updateUser operation. So the event always has to >>>> be published. >>>> >>>> The conclusion: Any update done to the account/domain/user, should >>>> generate the event. The recipient should make a decision whether to ignore >>>> the event, or process it further. Alex proposed to enhance the >>>> account/domain/user object with the field identifying who’s triggered the >>>> upgrade to give more details to the recipient. >>>> >>>> -Alena. >>>> >>>> From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>> Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 at 6:14 PM >>>> >>>> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>> Cc: Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy < >>>> murali.re...@citrix.com>, Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, " >>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>>> Subject: Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>> >>>> I'm not really sure why you think it is a bug. And why do you want >>>> to send data that is absolutely useless to the destination? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Alex Ough >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Alex, I can’t approve the current approach you use in your fix. The >>>>> reason that there are bugs in the current CS code, and therefore we can >>>>> contribute more to the buggy behavior, doesn’t sound right to me. And we >>>>> have –1 from Alex Huang on that as well. >>>>> >>>>> We either fix it as a part of this commit, or you can fix it later. >>>>> But it has to make it to 4.5, otherwise the original fix will be rolled >>>>> back. You can finalize the approach with Alex, and I will check in your >>>>> code as soon as its done, either before I go on vacation, or after I’m >>>>> back. >>>>> >>>>> -Alena. >>>>> >>>>> From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>> Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 at 3:13 PM >>>>> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>> Cc: Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com>, Murali Reddy < >>>>> murali.re...@citrix.com>, Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, " >>>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>> >>>>> That is not good, but I'm wondering if you can approve after our >>>>> conversation without consulting with Alex Hwang. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Alex Ough >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We do have to come to conclusion for this remaining issue before >>>>>> committing the patches below: >>>>>> (https://reviews.apache.org/r/20099/ and >>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/17790/) >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex (Ough), I’m going to be on vacation from May 15th till May >>>>>> 31st, if you and Alex(Huang) have your discussion/resolution while I’m >>>>>> away, I can commit the patches only after I’m back. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>> Alena. >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>> Date: Sunday, May 11, 2014 at 10:10 PM >>>>>> To: Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>>>>> Cc: Murali Reddy <murali.re...@citrix.com>, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>, Kishan Kavala < >>>>>> kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" < >>>>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>> >>>>>> Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like I'd better wait until you're back because I'm afraid >>>>>> Alena seems to need your approval based on what I've been through. >>>>>> Let me know once you're back. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Alex Huang >>>>>> <alex.hu...@citrix.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex and Alena, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps, it’s best you two get on the phone about this. I don’t see >>>>>>> Alex understanding what I’m saying over email so there’s no point in me >>>>>>> repeating it. I’m not around next week and I think Alena is out after >>>>>>> Wednesday. Something on Monday or Tuesday would be a good idea or you >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> wait for me to come back the week after. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Alex Ough [mailto:alex.o...@sungardas.com] >>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 10, 2014 9:28 AM >>>>>>> *To:* Alex Huang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Cc:* Murali Reddy; Alena Prokharchyk; Kishan Kavala; >>>>>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And I'm really wondering if you understood how the 'Full Scan' >>>>>>> works. It is absolutely internal operations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do we force to use the event generating methods when the updates >>>>>>> are only internal and never, ever, ever ... need events? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me know if there is any chance it needs to use the events, then >>>>>>> I'll follow your suggestion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I really don't know why you guys are making it complicated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The class has two different methods, one with 'event' decorator and >>>>>>> the other without it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the callers know which method to call depending on their needs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the each method will be called accordingly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not believe in the argument that says “since there’s existing >>>>>>> bad code, then I can check in code that also causes regressions for >>>>>>> users.” >>>>>>> If that’s the case, what’s the point of the review? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We’ve offered a path forward already. Please reconsider that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Alex Ough [mailto:alex.o...@sungardas.com] >>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 9, 2014 9:14 PM >>>>>>> *To:* Alex Huang >>>>>>> *Cc:* Murali Reddy; Alena Prokharchyk; Kishan Kavala; >>>>>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are we going to rolling this out? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's why there are 2 methods, one is that generates events and >>>>>>> the other not and there are already a few public methods without event >>>>>>> decoration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did read this when you first proposed. I do understand the two >>>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand that #2 is not activated via events but it doesn’t mean >>>>>>> #2 can just don’t generate events. The blocker is precisely with the >>>>>>> last >>>>>>> sentence in #2 where it states #2 doesn’t generate an event when “it >>>>>>> creates/updates/removes the resource in the local region”. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps an example would make this more clear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Someone who deploys CloudStack sets up a process to listen to >>>>>>> account events. It is a simple audit process whose job is to verify >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> an account created in CloudStack is actually in their own billing >>>>>>> database. The fact that #2 doesn’t generate an event would mean this >>>>>>> process would be broken for them. This is the regression that causes >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> blocker. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Alex Ough [mailto:alex.o...@sungardas.com] >>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 8, 2014 11:02 AM >>>>>>> *To:* Alex Huang >>>>>>> *Cc:* Murali Reddy; Alena Prokharchyk; Kishan Kavala >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you really review the wiki ( >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Domain-Account-User+Sync+Up+Among+Multiple+Regions) >>>>>>> or the implemented codes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To help you understand, there are 2 synchronizations supported in >>>>>>> this feature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. real time sync : This is what you may imagine and event based. >>>>>>> This is sending requests when they are created/updated/removed in the >>>>>>> local >>>>>>> region by subscribing their events. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. full scan : This is NOT related with events and it is to cover >>>>>>> when the #1 sync is failed with any reason like network failures. With >>>>>>> interval, it just scans all resources and compare them with ones in >>>>>>> remote >>>>>>> regions and if there is any missing in the local region, it >>>>>>> creates/updates/removes the resource in the local region and the NEW >>>>>>> METHODS I need are called because it is local region only and no need to >>>>>>> have events. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm hoping you understand the feature a little more and let me know >>>>>>> if you need more information. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please know that the contribution is much appreciated. It is not a >>>>>>> case of whether or not Alena “wants” or “doesn’t want” to approve the >>>>>>> review. She can only approve if the design is sound and has no >>>>>>> regression >>>>>>> for existing deployments of CloudStack. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a blocker because not publishing events when an account is >>>>>>> propagated is actually an “incorrect” behavior for CloudStack. Any >>>>>>> functionality that acts on an account creation within the region will >>>>>>> face >>>>>>> regression. That’s why it is not “an additional feature” and must be >>>>>>> fixed. Think of SunGuard itself. If it was depending on the account >>>>>>> creation event and the next version of CloudStack suddenly doesn’t >>>>>>> generate >>>>>>> the event consistently, would it not consider this a bug and ask us to >>>>>>> fix >>>>>>> it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do understand the time consuming nature of providing patches and >>>>>>> merging code. Alena tells me that she has reviewed the code and she >>>>>>> thinks >>>>>>> the design is fine except for this one item. If we can commit to fix >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> problem after the code is checked in, we can check it in now just so you >>>>>>> don’t have to do another round of merge and review for the part that is >>>>>>> working. But the fix will need to be in before the code is released or >>>>>>> else we might have to revert this checkin. What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. I’m not sure why this is not on the dev list. We should bring >>>>>>> this back. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Alex Ough [mailto:alex.o...@sungardas.com] >>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:58 PM >>>>>>> *To:* Murali Reddy >>>>>>> *Cc:* Alena Prokharchyk; Alex Huang; Kishan Kavala >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alena doesn't want to approve my implementation because of this >>>>>>> email thread, but I'm frustrated and not sure why this is a blocker. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I did was just created another method without an event tag like >>>>>>> the one already existing in 'AccountManagerImpl' class as below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Override >>>>>>> >>>>>>> public boolean enableAccount(long accountId) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And if we need this feature, we really need to create a new jira >>>>>>> instead of adding it to already existing one >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so that we can discuss options to find a best solution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's been a really long path mostly because of miscommunications, >>>>>>> and I really want to wrap this up without adding a new feature that is >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> existing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me know what you think. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex Ough >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Murali Reddy < >>>>>>> murali.re...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don’t think we need to bring back reverted changes, as we want >>>>>>> all the events generated should be published all the time with in the >>>>>>> region. I agree with Alex Huang, that we could actually add details >>>>>>> (originating region) to the account indicating source region where >>>>>>> account >>>>>>> is created. Details particular to an event published on the event bus >>>>>>> is a >>>>>>> JSON object so we can add additional details. Also steps listed out by >>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>> should prevent from cyclic propagation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex Ough, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suggested steps below by alex should work for you. Do you see any >>>>>>> problem with that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Murali >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> *Date: *Wednesday, 7 May 2014 5:56 AM >>>>>>> *To: *Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com>, Alex Ough < >>>>>>> alex.o...@sungardas.com>, Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, >>>>>>> Murali Reddy <murali.re...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex (Huang), thanks for commenting. As a conclusion – we should >>>>>>> never omit event firing when submit create/update. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kishan/Murali, can you please help Alex (Ough) to figure out how to >>>>>>> implement the behavior Kishan reverted. Kishan, can you check with >>>>>>> Murali >>>>>>> how to bring back your reverted changes for the API to make it work with >>>>>>> the new events framework? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alena. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From: *Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at 10:17 AM >>>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>, Alex Ough < >>>>>>> alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>>> *Cc: *Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> *Subject: *RE: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey guys, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’m not sure we’re all on the same page. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, the event must always be published, regardless of if it was >>>>>>> propagated from another region or created originally in that region. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> reason is there may be other code interested in acting on account >>>>>>> creation >>>>>>> in a region. We just need to provide a way for Alex’s code to determine >>>>>>> that the account is propagated rather than created originally in the >>>>>>> region. You don’t need details in the event for that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The propagation code can do the following. It’s probably already >>>>>>> doing that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Listen for the account creation event. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Upon receiving an account creation event, retrieve the >>>>>>> account to check if the account is propagated or created. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. If propagated, then don’t propagate or maybe even signal >>>>>>> back that the propagation is done for this region (depending on the >>>>>>> propagation logic). If created, then propagate to other regions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now the detail is in how do we know if an account is created or >>>>>>> propagated. For that, it can be done in a number of ways. I’m open to >>>>>>> which method. I would suggest that we add two fields to account: >>>>>>> origination region and original uuid. The create account API takes an >>>>>>> optional fields for the origination region and origination account uuid. >>>>>>> If these two parameters are not set in the API, the API set the >>>>>>> origination region to the current region and the original uuid to the >>>>>>> uuid >>>>>>> of the account. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for the confusion here. I had thought Kishan added this but >>>>>>> apparently it has been reverted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Alena Prokharchyk >>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 6, 2014 9:57 AM >>>>>>> *To:* Alex Ough >>>>>>> *Cc:* Kishan Kavala; Alex Huang >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, thank you Alex, so looks like there is no other workaround as of >>>>>>> now rather than introducing the new methods to the managers. Just go >>>>>>> ahead >>>>>>> and submit the rest of the fixes for both review tickets, and I will >>>>>>> commit >>>>>>> the patch after that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Alena. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at 9:48 AM >>>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> *Cc: *Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com>, Alex Huang < >>>>>>> alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm afraid it is not possible because the events are set in the >>>>>>> method level and one of my colleagues implemented to enable/disable >>>>>>> events, >>>>>>> but this is working as globally. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kishan, any updates from Murali? All we need to know is – if >>>>>>> controlling events possible when command is fired through CS client APIs >>>>>>> today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alena. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From: *Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at 7:22 AM >>>>>>> *To: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> *Cc: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com>, Alex Huang < >>>>>>> alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alena, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Events are published using the event framework introduced by >>>>>>> Murali. It can contain additional details to indicate whether an event >>>>>>> should be propagated to other regions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the implementation I added using API sync, there was a flag in >>>>>>> the API params to indicate whether to propagate event or not. I reverted >>>>>>> this code later when we moved to use event framework. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll check with Murali for more details regarding adding custom >>>>>>> details / extending event details. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06-May-2014, at 4:52 am, "Alena Prokharchyk" < >>>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex, I understand that. But if Kishan implemented the way of >>>>>>> extending the events with the details that can be later on read by >>>>>>> events >>>>>>> recipient, then you should be able to use the API. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there is no such support, the I agree that the way you do it now, >>>>>>> is the only one way to achieve the desired functionality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Alena. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From: *Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>>>>>> *Date: *Monday, May 5, 2014 at 4:08 PM >>>>>>> *To: *Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> *Cc: *Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>, Kishan >>>>>>> Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's exactly why I need methods that do NOT generate events when >>>>>>> the create/update/delete is just for local resources. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That’s actually what I said. Let me clarify. When Kishan added >>>>>>> the region feature, we discussed the problem of infinite circular >>>>>>> propagation because each management server that adds an account will >>>>>>> attempt to propagate it to all the regions by adding it to that region >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> so on. The API needs provide a way for that propagation to be >>>>>>> terminated. >>>>>>> That doesn’t mean we don’t publish the event in the region where the >>>>>>> account is propagated to. We still should publish the event because >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> region did add a new account but the event needs to contain enough >>>>>>> details >>>>>>> for anyone listening to the event to determine that they should not >>>>>>> propagate the account creation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Alena Prokharchyk >>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 5, 2014 2:39 PM >>>>>>> *To:* Kishan Kavala; Alex Ough >>>>>>> *Cc:* Alex Huang >>>>>>> *Subject:* Control event publishing in multi region setups >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kishan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have a question to you. Alex Huang mentioned to me that you were >>>>>>> planning to add support for controlling event publishing in multi >>>>>>> regions >>>>>>> setup. So you can control whether you want to publish the event in a >>>>>>> particular region when create/update/delete account/domain API call is >>>>>>> made. Can you please tell us if you’ve implemented it? And what >>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>> need to be passed to the API call to achieve that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex (Ought), if Kishan didn’t implement this, then I agree with the >>>>>>> way you’ve added new methods to Account/DomainManagers to do the object >>>>>>> update w/o the event generation. Lets wait for Kishan’s reply. By now, >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> can go ahead and fix 1) and 2) in >>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20099/ which is not related to event >>>>>>> generation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Alena. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
