Andrey, > It just doesn't work. If there is precedent of usage of Guava methods then somebody will use other methods.
Maybe you are right. I would suggest a vote on whether we should allow Guava methods in the codebase or not. Let's do that in a separate thread? In the meantime we will prohibit using Guava until the voting is complete. On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 3:58 PM Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> wrote: > > So I would propose to allow at least *some* methods that we consider > useful, while disallowing everything else. > > It just doesn't work. If there is precedent of usage of Guava methods > then somebody will use other methods. > > > 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 don't understand why somebody did such a copy-paste, but I believe > that nobody supports this code. So, from my point of view, it isn't a > problem. > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 2:52 PM Alexander Polovtcev > <alexpolovt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > -- With regards, Aleksandr Polovtcev
