Andrey, I think that the benefits of using Guava methods instead of copy-pasting them are quite obvious: you don't have to copy-paste code and support it. I also find this situation quite strange: we have a dependency and copy-paste code from it instead of using it directly.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 1:58 PM Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alex, > > As I understand we agree to shade Guava transitive dependency and > you said a 'maven-shade-plugin' can drop unused Guava methods to reduce the > footprint of Ignite jar. > > At this point, there is no difference between copy-pasting Guava method to > Ignite and use Guava one. > The resulted jar will have one copy of such method, but in the second case, > we have to care about compatibility when the transitive Guava dependency > will be updated to a new version. > > So, I see no benefits from using Guava directly. > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 11:56 AM Alexander Polovtcev < > alexpolovt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, Andrey! > > I mostly agree with your proposal, but, since we already have some > > copy-paste in our code, can we at least use Guava to remove it? So I > would > > propose to allow at least *some* methods that we consider useful, while > > disallowing everything else. I understand that it may be difficult to > > formalize, so maybe we can create some kind of a whitelist of Guava > > methods? What do you think? > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 2:54 PM Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Follow up > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 1:22 PM Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > What I actually didn't understand from this thread: Is Guava allowed > > > > in production code of Ignite 3 modules (not dependencies like > > > > Calcite)? > > > > > > > > While we agree with using shading I don't see any arguments about > > > > using Guava library in our code base except for the fact that we have > > > > some copy-paste of Guava code in the project. > > > > > > > > Guava is rich enough library and it has both advantages and > > > > disadvantages. Ignite code base always strived to be not overloaded > > > > and minimalistic. For example we usually use immutability very rare, > > > > we try to avoid complex and overloaded APIs on hot path, we try > reduce > > > > GC pressure, etc. In turn, Guava is some sense forces using of > > > > immutable collections, has a lot of utility methods which produces > > > > temp object (yes, I don't trust to escap analysys), etc. Rich set of > > > > collections and utility functions will also lead to different > > > > programming styles during Ignite development. I can't predict it, but > > > > it is usual enough when some developers force immutablity while > others > > > > remove static type declaration and replace it by var :) > > > > > > > > This is a common pratice to reduce language possibilies subset and > > > > limiting using of some libraries in order to provide more or less > > > > unified approach to coding. So I propose to disallow using Guava in > > > > our code base. > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 7:37 PM Alexander Polovtcev > > > > <alexpolovt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again for your responses. I've created a ticket about using > > the > > > > > Shade plugin in order to understand if it is possible to shade and > > > minimize > > > > > Guava, I will start working on it shortly: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15354 > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 1:51 PM Courtney Robinson < > > > courtney.robin...@hypi.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think since Calcite brings it in already then your arguments > make > > > sense. > > > > > > Would it be pinned to the same version as Calcite? Risk > > > NoSuchMethodError > > > > > > at runtime if not. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 9:56 AM Alexander Polovtcev < > > > > > > alexpolovt...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zhenya, Courtney, Andrey, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about my arguments, was I able to convince > you? > > > I would > > > > > > > like to reach some consensus here. At the moment, my original > > > points > > > > > > still > > > > > > > stand, I'm also ok with shading Guava if needed, though I think > > it > > > is not > > > > > > > necessary at this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 12:45 PM Alexander Polovtcev < > > > > > > > alexpolovt...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zhenya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is no restrictions from running ignite server > nodes > > > from > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > other code with it`s own guava version seems we obtain fast > > path > > > to jar > > > > > > > > hell here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if I fully understand your question, but it > looks > > > like we > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > in this situation already, because we have some dependencies > > > that use > > > > > > > > Guava. That's why I propose to add Guava explicitly to at > least > > > have a > > > > > > > > deterministic runtime configuration (see this link > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#Dependency_Management > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for an explanation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 12:25 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky > > > > > > > > <arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Alexander, first of all looks like Ivan Daschinsky approach > > > about thin > > > > > > > >> client use only and shadow plugin are cover all Andrey > > Mashenkov > > > > > > listing > > > > > > > >> problems. > > > > > > > >> But there is no restrictions from running ignite server > nodes > > > from > > > > > > some > > > > > > > >> other code with it`s own guava version seems we obtain fast > > > path to > > > > > > jar > > > > > > > >> hell here? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >Zhenya, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >My intentions are the following: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >1. Remove some copy-pasted code (like the "bytecode" module > > or > > > some > > > > > > > >> utility > > > > > > > >> >methods). Please see my original message for the links to > the > > > code. > > > > > > > >> >2. Explicitly pin the Guava version to avoid conflicts in > the > > > > > > runtime. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >About allowing to use Guava in the codebase, my thoughts > are > > > the > > > > > > > >> following: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >1. We *already* use some code from Guava either directly > > (like > > > in the > > > > > > > >> >"calcite" module) or by copy-pasting it into a utility > class. > > > > > > > >> >2. I understand that some Guava methods are obsolete as of > > > Java 11, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > >> >some of them still don't have any standard library > > > counterparts, in > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > >> >case I think using Guava is justified (which is supported > by > > > point > > > > > > 1). > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >Can you please explain why you would disapprove of my > > proposal? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 7:56 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky > > > > > > > >> >< arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> alexpolovtcev please clarify what do you mean under : > > > «possibility > > > > > > of > > > > > > > >> >> using Guava in Ignite 3», using how necessary dependency > of > > > calcite > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > >> >> using like «using in our code» ? If using in code, i -1 > > here. > > > > > > > >> >> thanks. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >Hello, dear Igniters! > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >I would like to discuss the possibility of using Guava > > > > > > > >> >> >< https://github.com/google/guava > in Ignite 3. I > know > > > about > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> >> restrictive > > > > > > > >> >> >policy of using it in Ignite 2, but I have the following > > > reasons: > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >1. We are de-facto using it already as an implicit > > > dependency, > > > > > > since > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > >> >> >Calcite module depends on it, and Calcite is going to > stay > > > for a > > > > > > > >> while =) > > > > > > > >> >> >2. AFAIK, the "bytecode" module is copied into the > > codebase > > > only > > > > > > to > > > > > > > >> strip > > > > > > > >> >> >Guava away from it. We can remove this module, which > will > > > improve > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> >> >maintainability of the project. > > > > > > > >> >> >3. We have some copy-paste of Guava code in the project. > > For > > > > > > > example, > > > > > > > >> see > > > > > > > >> >> >this > > > > > > > >> >> >< > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/main/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/IgniteUtils.java#L136 > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >and this > > > > > > > >> >> >< > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/main/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/IgniteUtils.java#L428 > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >. > > > > > > > >> >> >4. Regarding security concerns, this report > > > > > > > >> >> >< > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.cvedetails.com/product/52274/Google-Guava.html?vendor_id=1224 > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >shows no major vulnerability issues for the last three > > > years. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >Taking these points into account, I propose to allow > using > > > Guava > > > > > > > both > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > >> >> >production and test code and to add it as an explicit > > > dependency. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >What do you think? > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >-- > > > > > > > >> >> >With regards, > > > > > > > >> >> >Aleksandr Polovtcev > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >-- > > > > > > > >> >With regards, > > > > > > > >> >Aleksandr Polovtcev > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > With regards, > > > > > > > > Aleksandr Polovtcev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > With regards, > > > > > > > Aleksandr Polovtcev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > With regards, > > > > > Aleksandr Polovtcev > > > > > > > > > -- > > With regards, > > Aleksandr Polovtcev > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov > -- With regards, Aleksandr Polovtcev
