If there would be dependencies on some other things, that in no way could be fixed now, we could wait for 4.7 (5.0). However, if we could give it a go, I would be able to tackle this in our next Sprint (within 1 1/2 week from now) and still get it into 4.6.
What would be the main considerations? Cheers, Wilder On 14 Jul 2015, at 22:25, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl<mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/14/2015 10:18 PM, John Burwell wrote: Wido, Is the OpenJDK PPA [1] not acceptable? Since Java7 is no longer supported, we run the risk of an Java security issue affecting the project that won’t be fixed. I didn't know that a PPA with OpenJDk existed. Looking at it I see that the maintainer Matthias Klose works for Canonical, so it seems like an official PPA. Still, having users adding PPAs is something we want to prevent as much as possible, but I do recognize the problem here. Ubuntu 16.04 is less then a year away and will have Java 8 support, so that will be resolved by then, but for now it is a problem. I think that CloudStack 4.6 is to early, but maybe 4.7 (called 5.0?) is a good time to make the move? Wido Thanks, -John [1]: https://launchpad.net/~openjdk-r/+archive/ubuntu/ppa --- John Burwell (@john_burwell) VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542 http://www.shapeblue.com Please join us at CloudStack Collab EU — http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-collaboration-conf erence-europe On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:47 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl<mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> wrote: Signed PGP part On 07/10/2015 09:22 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote: Ping Wilder - any progress/plan on moving forward (perhaps after 4.6?). I don't think there is? Since Ubuntu 14.04 doesn't support Java 8 in any package form we can't really continue. Ubuntu 16.04 will ship with Java 8 and that will be the next LTS. Wido On 01-May-2015, at 4:07 pm, Wilder Rodrigues <wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com><mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: Hi Marcus, Sorry for the push, I think after doing the whole CitrixResourceBase refactor I also got a bit attached to the whole thing/solution. ;) Thanks for the input you gave. I will finish the refactor and apply it to both implementations. Cheers, Wilder On 01 May 2015, at 09:06, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com<mailto:shadow...@gmail.com><mailto:shadow...@gmail.com><mailto:shadowsor@gm ai l.com<http://l.com>>> wrote: Oh, and of course the annotation added to the wrapper looks like: ... @ResourceWrapper(handles = CheckHealthCommand.class) public final class LibvirtCheckHealthCommandWrapper ... maybe 'wraps' or 'wrapperfor' would be better than 'handles' in your naming scheme. You get the idea. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com<mailto:shadow...@gmail.com><mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree, this wrapper is a good step forward. It's totally fine to continue on that path because it is obviously better and makes it easy to switch to autodetection anytime later by simply adding the annotation. Sorry if I got a bit passionate about that, but as you mention I also get tired of adding things in multiple places, and the annotations have worked well in the API and provide a good model to emulate for consistency. I can't share code, because these extensions to LibvirtComputingResource that I've provided for other companies have not been open sourced. I can speak more generically though about methods. To answer question "a", reflection allows you to do something like: Reflections reflections = new Reflections("com.cloud.hypervisor.kvm.resource.wrapper"); Set<Class<? extends CommandWrapper>> wrappers = reflections.getSubTypesOf(CommandWrapper.class); So here in "new Reflections" we are automatically filtering for just the wrappers that would apply to the KVM plugin. Then to finish it off, you iterate through the wrappers and do: ResourceWrapper annotation = wrapper.getAnnotation(ResourceWrapper.class); citrixCommands.put(annotation.handles(), wrapper.newInstance()); Sorry, I guess that's four lines, plus the relevant for loop. And probably a null check or something for the annotation. You also have to add the annotation class itself, and add a line for the annotation in each wrapper, but in the end when we add new Commands, we won't have to touch anything but the new class that handles the command. public @interface ResourceWrapper { Class<? extends Command> handles(); } There's an example of something similar to this in KVMStoragePoolManager.java (annotation is StoragePoolInfo.java). This example has actually been adapted from that. Also to a lesser extent in the API server, but it is spread across a bunch of classes. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Wilder Rodrigues <wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com><mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: Hi Marcus, Thanks for the email… I’m always in for improvements. But why can’t you share the code? Few points below: 1. I added an subclassing example of LibvirtComputingResource because you mentioned it in a previous email: On 23 Apr 2015, at 17:26, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com<mailto:shadow...@gmail.com><mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>> wrote: I mentioned the reflection model because that's how I tend to handle the commands when subclassing LibvirtComputingResource. 2. Current situation with LibvirtComputingResource on Master is: a. 67 IFs b. 67 private/protected methods that are used only there c. If a new Command is added it means we will have a new IF and a new private method e. Maintenance is hell, test is close to zero and code quality is below expectations That being said, the main idea with the refactor is to change structure only, not behaviour. So what I’m doing is to simply move the code out the LibvirtCompRes and write tests for it, keeping the behaviour the same - to be done in a next phase. If you look at the changes you will see that some wrappers are already 100% covered. However, some others have 4% or 8% (not that much though). I would like to refactor that as well, but that could change behaviour (mentioned above) which I don’t want to touch now. 3. With the new situation: a. No IFs b. All methods wrapped by other classes (command wrappers) - loosely coupled, easier to test and maintain c. If a new Command is added we would have to add a command wrapper and 1 line in the request wrapper implementation ( I know, it hurts you a bit) - but please bear with me for the good news. 4. the warnings are due to that: Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>, CommandWrapper>() No big deal. As I understood from your first paragraph we would have to annotated the commands classes, right? I mean, all of them. That’s something I wouldn’t do in this phase, to be honest. It might seem harmless to do, but I like to break things down a bit and have more isolation in my changes. What’s next: I will finish the refactor with the request wrapper as it is. For me it is no problem do add the lines now and remove them in 1 week. Most of the work is concentrated in the tests, which I’m trying as hard as I can to get them in the best way possible. Once it’s done and pushed to master, I will analyse what we would need to apply the annotation. But before I go to bring the kids to school, just one question: a. The “handle” value, in the annotation, would have the wrapper class that would be used for that command, right? Now let’s get 1 command as example: CheckHealthCommand. Its wrapper implementation differs per hypervisor (just like all the other wrapper commands do). I’m not taking the time to really think about it now, but how would we annotated the different wrappers per command? Thanks again for your time. Cheers, Wilder On 30 Apr 2015, at 22:52, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com<mailto:shadow...@gmail.com><mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>> wrote: Ok. I wish I could share some code, because it isn't really as big of a deal as it sounds from your reasoning. It is literally just 3 lines on startup that fetch anything with the '@AgentExecutor' annotation and stores it in a hash whose key is the value from @AgentExecutor's 'handles' property. Then when a *Command comes it it is passed to the appropriate Executor class. Looking at CitrixRequestWrapper, the 3 lines I mention are almost identical in function to your init method, just that it uses the annotation to find all of the commands, rather than hardcoding them. We use the same annotation design for the api side of the code on the management server, which allows the api commands to be easier to write and self-contained (you don't have to update other code to add a new api call). It makes things easier for novice developers. This implementation is no less typesafe than the previous design (the one with all of the instanceof). It didn't require any casting or warning suppression, either, as the wrapper does. Extending LibvirtComputingResource is not ideal, and doesn't work if multiple third parties are involved. Granted, there hasn't been a lot of demand for this, nevertheless it's particularly important for KVM, where the Command classes are executed on the hypervisor it's not really feasible to just dump the code in your management server-side plugin like some plugins do. In reviewing the code, the two implementations are really very close. If you just updated init to fetch the wrappers based on either an annotation or the class they extend, or something along those lines so this method doesn't have to be edited every time a command is added, that would be more or less the same thing. The the KVM agent would be pluggable like the management server side is. On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Wilder Rodrigues <wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com><mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: Hi Marcus, Apologies for taking so much time to reply to your email, but was, and still am, quite busy. :) I would only use reflection if that was the only way to do it. The use of reflection usually makes the code more complex, which is not good when we have java developers in all different levels (from jr. do sr) working with cloudstack. It also makes us lose the type safety, which might also harm the exception handling if not done well. In addition, if we need to refactor something, the IDE is no longer going to do few things because the refection code cannot be found. If someone will need to extend the LibvirtComputingResource that would be no problem with the approach I’m using. The CitrixResourceBase also has quite few sub-classes and it works just fine. I will document on the wiki page how it should be done when sub-classing the LibvirtComputingResource class. In a quick note/snippet, one would do: public class EkhoComputingResource extends LibvirtComputingResource { @Override public Answer executeRequest(final Command cmd) { final LibvirtRequestWrapper wrapper = LibvirtRequestWrapper.getInstance(); try { return wrapper.execute(cmd, this); } catch (final Exception e) { return Answer.createUnsupportedCommandAnswer(cmd); } } } In the flyweight where I keep the wrapper we could have (): final Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>, CommandWrapper> linbvirtCommands = new Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>, CommandWrapper>(); linbvirtCommands.put(StopCommand.class, new LibvirtStopCommandWrapper()); final Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>, CommandWrapper> ekhoCommands = new Hashtable<Class<? extends Command>, CommandWrapper>(); linbvirtCommands.put(StopCommand.class, new EkhoStopCommandWrapper()); resources.put(LibvirtComputingResource.class, linbvirtCommands); resources.put(EkhoComputingResource.class, ekhoCommands); But that is needed only if the StopCommand has a different behaviour for the EkhoComputingResource. Once a better version of the documentation is on the wiki, I will let you know. On other matters, I’m also adding unit tests for all the changes. We already went from 4% to 13.6% coverage in the KVM hypervisor plugin. The code I already refactored has 56% of coverage. You can see all the commits here: https://github.com/schubergphilis/cloudstack/tree/refactor/libvirt_r es ource Cheers, Wilder On 23 Apr 2015, at 17:26, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com<mailto:shadow...@gmail.com><mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>> wrote: Great to see someone working on it. What sorts of roadblocks came out of reflection? How does the wrapper design solve the pluggability issue? This is pretty important to me, since I've worked with several companies now that end up subclassing LibvirtComputingResource in order to handle their own Commands on the hypervisor from their server-side plugins, and changing their 'resource' to that in agent.properties. Since the main agent class needs to be set at agent join, this is harder to manage than it should be. I mentioned the reflection model because that's how I tend to handle the commands when subclassing LibvirtComputingResource. I haven't had any problems with it, but then again I haven't tried to refactor 5500 lines into that model, either. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Wilder Rodrigues <wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com><mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: Hi Marcus, I like the annotation idea, but reflection is trick because it hides some information about the code. Please, have a look at the CitrixResourceBase after the refactor I did. It became quite smaller and test coverage was improved. URL: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Refactoring+X en Server+Hypervisor+Plugin The same patter is being about to Libvirt stuff. The coverage on the KVM hypervisor plugin already went from 4 to 10.5% after refactoring 6 commands Cheers, Wilder On 22 Apr 2015, at 23:06, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com<mailto:shadow...@gmail.com><mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>> wrote: Kind of a tangent, but I'd actually like to see some work done to clean up LibvirtComputing resource. One model I've prototyped that seems to work is to create an annotation, such as 'KVMCommandExecutor', with a 'handles' property. With this annotation, you implement a class that handles, e.g. StartCommand, etc. Then in LibvirtComputingResource, the 'configure' method fetches all of these executors via reflection and stores them in an object. Then, instead of having all of the 'instanceof' lines in LibvirtComputingResource, the executeRequest method fetches the executor that handles the incoming command and runs it. I think this would break up LibvirtComputingResource into smaller, more testable and manageable chunks, and force things like config and utility methods to move to a more sane location, as well. As a bonus, this model makes things pluggable. Someone could ship KVM plugin code containing standalone command executors that are discovered at runtime for things they need to run at the hypervisor level. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Wilder Rodrigues <wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com><mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: Hi all, Yesterday I started working on the LibvirtComputingResource class in order to apply the same patterns I used in the CitrixResourceBase + add more unit tests to it After 10 hours of work I got a bit stuck with the 1st test, which would cover the refactored LibvirtStopCommandWrapper. Why did I get stuck? The class used a few static methods that call native libraries, which I would like to mock. However, when writing the tests I faced problems with the current Mockito/PowerMock we are using: they are simply not enough for the task. What did I do then? I added a dependency to EasyMock and PowerMock-EasyMock API. It worked almost fine, but I had to add a “-noverify” to both my Eclipse Runtime configuration and also to the cloud-plugin-hypervisor-kvm/pom.xml file. I agree that’s not nice, but was my first attempt of getting it to work. After trying to first full build I faced more problems related to ClassDefNotFoundExpcetion which were complaining about Mockito classes. I then found out that adding the PowerMockRunner to all the tests classes was going to be a heavy burden and would also mess up future changes (e.g. the -noverify flag was removed from Java 8, thus adding it now would be a problem soon). Now that the first 2 paragraphs explain a bit about the problem, let’s get to the solution: Java 8 The VerifyError that I was getting was due to the use of the latest EasyMock release (3.3.1). I tried to downgrade it to 3.1/3.2 but it also did not work. My decision: do not refactor if the proper tests cannot be added. This left me with one action: migrate to Java 8. There were mentions about Java 8 in february[1] and now I will put some energy in making it happen. What is your opinion on it? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Wilder http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cloudstack-dev/201502.mbox/ %3 c54eef6be.5040...@shapeblue.com<mailto:c54eef6be.5040...@shapeblue.com>%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_m box/cloudstack-dev/201502.mbox/<54eef6be.5040...@shapeblue.com<mailto:54eef6be.5040...@shapeblue.com><mailto :54 eef6be.5040...@shapeblue.com<mailto:eef6be.5040...@shapeblue.com>>>> Regards, Rohit Yadav Software Architect, ShapeBlue [cid:9DD97B41-04C5-45F0-92A7-951F3E962F7A] M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com><mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> Blog: bhaisaab.org<http://bhaisaab.org><http://bhaisaab.org> | Twitter: @_bhaisaab Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark. Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVpXBRAAoJEAGbWC3bPspCsEMP/0q8vUvG89JAtrOqBRF3s6Jh T7pSSFGds+D3/WLKI5/qwt9ep92CmFbTOLoF6J5+33kFgePUTWtCHsXJJSH00Iyc XbYG6YYYSxFa2sj208hkMlResKzLUMUAGTdSosy8S2sdV6Bv3CY6eoo1XrnmOPIP gi7VbXauVRPQNoqoTKhwVWYRt2aH3cOxnfyojYcBmc9wPq2DjsZbwcasBDLilyF/ ezAoLB4PO7/Nf1iKl/oIakjUep7xgba7TQNdP/i5ALeLRkC4fRHDCFRrw3FqZkhX i7oPND9yZ8KrEJi1i/hvhTgFQm/r+gktu12ydfbGl0C3auaBgYsOVS92EIRTtFae Q1zh9E51mVUoKfSUp92rff0d7wrHI7HEJ1qeciuc4TVGkvgShWnJzGTft2RiVRuI ps1jQof8K3ae4tnjbxz4tfMIn7/ZTlZcklsSisGTrzhGzF802368TWL/ePR51s56 VLCEJZsHyF9PUUVf/3eRLkqk/6bABRfjqvjS8VHHbfVp0QGnYaqe4621FUnTC+lB P077F/bvXhNlOHiPMGs4etcM+xq7aXXMPdXeLxdCsjmsENrvStApUQ07uRneX5a9 eU6BAXH0kEBLJzhXmOjbsCk378c/d4FxslgHySiYrt/C9NUpY0bakZpjYFemw12E +PFfUwbg/Lq8UvaS8fWq =nJKK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
