Thanks for chiming in Rodric - can you add a review to the PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/3562? I mostly want to avoid adding the ref count complexity that will be removed, but if that isn’t a concern for anyone else I will get it merged, but would like the review for a sanity check.
Thanks Tyson On Jun 26, 2018, at 6:18 AM, Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com<mailto:rod...@gmail.com>> wrote: +1 to refcount, i think it's better to shut down the pool then possibly leave open connections that may cause trouble when you replace a controller in production. the implementation seems straightforward here. -r On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Chetan Mehrotra <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com<mailto:chetan.mehro...@gmail.com>> wrote: it hasn’t been clear that this is a problem (other than good citizenship dictating that you should gracefully close resources) Yes its more about implementing the contract of ArtifactStore interface properly. For now if not done properly it should not cause much harm barring test which I would need to check These would connect to the same endpoint, sure, but is that a problem other than inflating the connection pool slightly? It might make things more consistent with other artifact stores, with the sacrifice of some azure purity that not have real impact. I would prefer to reuse the connection thread pool as given how queries in CosmosDB work I expect lots of connections to be used concurrently. So better to reuse the pool across 3 collections If there is significant problem with not revising the SPI to better handle shutdown (or other aspects), an alternate approach would be to address the SPI first. How SPI lifecyle is managed would need to be discussed. In other places often some IoC container gets used which manages the lifecycle aspect in a std manner. Given our current SPI model we would need to handle that. It would be better to address the shutdown semantics in a separate issue as its orthogonal to current PR objective. For this PR we have 2 option (unless less someone can suggest an alternative) 1. Accept current state of rely on ref counting 2. Do not close the pool on shutdown with assumption it should not cause much issue Chetan Mehrotra On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Tyson Norris <tnor...@adobe.com.invalid<mailto:tnor...@adobe.com.invalid>> wrote: I prefer not to introduce the ref counting - it is cryptic and if it is known to need replacement, these are signs that it should not go in. What is the exact affect treating shutdown the same as in couchdb store for now? (Meaning, shutdown is not really handled explicitly) Other than possibly complicating test scenarios, it hasn’t been clear that this is a problem (other than good citizenship dictating that you should gracefully close resources) I’m also still wondering if “sharing the client” is required - what are the affects of having multiple clients that connect to the same instance? These clients will only operate on different collections within that instance right? These would connect to the same endpoint, sure, but is that a problem other than inflating the connection pool slightly? It might make things more consistent with other artifact stores, with the sacrifice of some azure purity that not have real impact. If there is significant problem with not revising the SPI to better handle shutdown (or other aspects), an alternate approach would be to address the SPI first. I’m interested to know what others think. Thanks Tyson On Jun 21, 2018, at 3:50 AM, Chetan Mehrotra < chetan.mehro...@gmail.com<mailto:chetan.mehro...@gmail.com>> wrote: ArtifactStore SPI exposes a shutdown method which is responsible for closing any resource owned by store implementation. Ccurrently for CouchDbRestStore it only shuts down ActorMaterializer which is created one per instance. It does not shutdown Http pool which is shared across 3 store instance. This is documented in PoolingRestClient. Now with CosmosDBArtifactStore we need to share a `DocumentClient` instance which owns the underlying Netty connection pool. As all the store instance talk to same db it makes sense to share the instance. However this sharing poses problem with shutdown. To handle that CosmosDB PR introduces a `CountedReference` [1] which keeps an open/close count and only closes when all references are closed. Wanted to check with team if that would be fine approach to take? Currently its bit tricky to manage components lifecycle and often we need to rely on shutdown hooks to close the resources properly. May be we revisit SPI/component lifecycle handling later and then review this shutdown method handling Chetan Mehrotra [1] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com<http://2Fgithub.com>%2Fapache%2Fincubator-openwhisk%2Fpull%2F3562% 2Ffiles%23diff-&data=02%7C01%7Ctnorris%40adobe.com<http://40adobe.com>% 7Cfbbbb0ade8ac4925e92b08d5d764dd9c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636651750626753531&sdata=BJVvsBCyWCnzspYnYDyXrBfiLNk97v BJyJuDQzslcag%3D&reserved=0 9d57de71410575fd70240ac974be407d
