Alexander, Feel free to start voting. Please, refer to this discussion in order to avoid a new flaming thread in the voting topic.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 6:04 PM Alexander Polovtcev <alexpolovt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
