Alex/Rohit, Great to hear that I misunderstood! If it is supposed to be compatible as a goal, then my concern can be switched to a question of how are we doing compatibility testing.
- chip Sent from my iPhone. On Dec 22, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Alex Huang <[email protected]> wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong here, Rohit. I believe the refactoring work consists > of the following. > > - Moving java packages around for better grouping. These doesn't have much > impact on the query API, except for maybe some typos in the > commands.properties file. > - Splitting the commands that have optional admin commands into an admin > package. The current commands.properties should still be referencing the > admin package as it is backwards compatible with 4.0.0. > - Additions in the processing engine to process the new annotations added. > If the annotation is not there, the processing remains the same as the 4.0.0. > - Work on the response side to make sure the UUIDs that were being returned > are not done through n+1 queries but from a big join. > > The work on uuid etc actually happened in 3.0.0 but it was done in rather > horrific fashion, causing problems in upgrade, performance, scalability, and > security. We're really just cleaning up in terms of that. If you're running > 3.0-4.0, you should be seeing uuids in the responses and using uuids in the > incoming query parameters already. If you see specific examples where it is > not, it's a bug in the api. > > I don't think it will break the end user api other than bugs introduced > during coding. In fact, we took great effort to keep the api the same. If > we didn't have that constraint, I would have designed a completely new REST > style api instead of keeping the semi-awkward query language the current api > is on. This refactoring is all about keeping the over-the-wire api the same > while moving a lot of the hard-coded parameter checking, security checking, > etc into adapters to decouple the different aspects of checking to see if an > api should be executed. > > --Alex > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 6:26 AM >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Merge request: Merging api_refactoring on master >> >> So it sounds like a ton of good work. >> >> However, the proposed merge also sounds like it breaks public API >> compatibility with 4.0.0 in both the uuid / id changes and in the list >> result changes. >> >> So I guess this is my first question: does the community agree that >> the benefits of these changes outweigh the concerns about moving >> straight from 4.0.0 to 5.0.0? >> >> Rohit, I think we HAVE to have concerns us on that question before >> this merge happens. >> >> - chip >> >> Sent from my iPhone. >> >> On Dec 22, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Rohit Yadav <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I'm planning to merge api_refactoring branch on to master after 72 hour >> period which would be Monday EOD. Pl. go through the email, and previous >> threads on api refactoring rework and feel free to share your ideas, >> comments and vote to agree, disagree. If no one objects I would like to ask >> the git Santa to merge it on Christmas 25 Dec :D (after 72 hour window) >>> >>> The reason why I want to merge around the next week is because I think >> we would have lower frequencies of emails, review requests and people >> contributing, hence I can move around a lot of code (mostly package >> renames to org.apache.cloudstack in cloud-api) and right now the merge >> conflicts are really minimum, about 100-200 lines. (A top level issues to >> track >> sub-issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-638) >>> >>> What will be affected: >>> 0. Any class in cloud-api and on api-layer only >>> 1. Any class that imports from/to cloud-api's response and cmd classes >>> >>> Some of the major changes that will be merged on master; >>> 0. Over the wire (OTW) HTTP request to API server would send only UUID >> strings. All requests done via UUIDs (and not CloudStack's internal db's >> IDs). >>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-518 Fix >> @Parameter annotation to have annotation field to a Response class which >> would give us entities (interface to VO objects). This would get rid of all >> IdentityMapper using which was used earlier to get VO entities from an >> annotated table name. This helps us to translate OTW UUIDs to CloudStack's >> DB's internal IDs. >>> 2. Separation of ACL Role access checker as an adapter, so organizations can >> implement their own role based access checking. The mechanism would exist >> in CloudStack's API server but policy checking is moved out of CloudStack. >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-639) This works, but >> was tough to get it right the first time, there is better way which I'll >> share >> before the merge. >>> 3. Group APIs to >> org.apache.cloudstack.api.{command,response}.{entity1,entity2 etc.} >> packages. This is mainly done for developers, so when they work on API layer >> they would know which api has what level of security and as they are >> grouped based on entity type, it will be easier to search. This was mostly >> file >> movement to org.apache.cloudstack.api package and helped us track couple >> of classes which are no longer needed. Another aim was to move from >> com.cloud to org.apache.cloudstack (only cloud-api for now). >>> 4. Annotation work as described in 1., also for @ACL etc. >>> 5. DB, ACL validation wip code >>> 6. A lot of list api optimizations and response view work from our newest >> commiter, Min Chen. The aim is to simply response, right now for. example >> when we listVMs we don't want unnecessary (serialized) response objects >> which could be queried using uuids separately. >>> >>> Pl. ask away any doubts, questions and concerns you may have. It was >> challenging for me as well to understand the functional spec, to know the >> why/what/how, and if you read the old threads you can tell I did not get it >> the first time. >>> >>> A lot of annotation work is aimed to be completed over this weekend, so >> when the branch is finally merged it won't break any functionality. At >> present >> the branch is quite stable >>> >>> Testing and how or why do it? >>> 0. Prasanna, Meghna? can help us write few basic sets of unit tests and >> marvin integration tests for OTW requests. We already have few of their >> patches on rb. >>> 1. We can also have drivers to automate tests (Prasanna can talk more on >> this and on his devcloud based continuous intergration server) >>> 2. If I do it now, there would be a lot more eyes to point out bugs and I >> want more people to participate in the refactoring work. >>> 3. Right now, it builds and runs fine with minimal breaks and no >> functionality breakage as most of the changes are only restricted to api- >> server (:cloud-api artifact). I'm able to deploy a zone etc. To make the UUID >> thing work, I've put in hardcoded (for. ex. projectId=-1 which should be a >> string uuid not a long int value -1) stuff that saves the UI from being >> broken >> which I'll remove after merging on master so UI engineers can help fix UI >> issues. >>> >>> Lastly, I would like to thank Min for her amazing patches and optimization >> work, Prachi for her work on ACL, Fang, Prasanna, Likitha for their help with >> the refactoring work and for their contributions. Community for asking >> questions, raising issues and thanks to Alex for his guidance, reviews and >> kickass OOP concepts. >>> >>> Ref; >>> http://www.slideshare.net/buildacloud/cloudstack-collaboration- >> conference-12-refactoring-cloud-stack >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator- >> cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/api_refactoring >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+API+ >> refactoring >>> >>> Regards. >>> PS. will write a blog on it this weekend so folks can follow what's going >>> on :) >>> PPS. maybe explain in a video >
