All, Alex Huang, Alena and I had a conversation to find out the best solution for one remaining issue, which is to prevent the changes from being sent to remote regions even when resource changes are occurred in the local region during FullScan and these are what we decided.
1. A new parameter, 'originated_region_uuid', will be used to control the flow - during the realtime sync, the value will be the uuid of the local region to allow the changes to be transferred to remote regions, - during the full scan, the value will be the uuid of the remote region to prevent them from being transferred to remote regions even if the change was occurred in the local region. 2. To support this change, a new input param, 'originated_region_uuid', will be added to all methods to manage user/account/domain in AccountManager & DomainManager class. 3. To store the new input param value, a new field, 'originated_region_uuid', will be added to domain/account/user table and they will be populated with the current local region uuid when the fields are created during the schema changes because we can guarantee that the current user/account/domain resources were created in the local region. 4. The API interfaces to manage the user/account/domain will have an additional input param, 'originated_region_uuid', to support this change. Please let me know if you have any comments. Thanks Alex Ough On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > Yes, I’m back. Please check with Alex Huang what time he can be on the > call with you. I can join any time today/tomorrow. > > -Alena. > > From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> > Date: Monday, June 2, 2014 at 9:49 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 > > Hi Alena, > > Did you get back from the vacation? > If so, let me know when it is the good time to discuss this. > > Thanks > Alex Ough > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> > wrote: > >> I know. That's why I asked before Alex Huang to let me know when he's >> available after he's coming back next week. >> >> Have a good vacation. >> Thanks >> Alex Ough >> >> >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> Alex, I’m on vacation tomorrow; leaving today at 2 pm. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alena. >>> >>> From: Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>> Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 at 1:18 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 >>> >>> My meeting is being delayed, so let me know when you guys are >>> available from tomorrow. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Alex Ough >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungardas.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
