John, This refactoring did not use JAX-RS precisely because of the concern that we needed to keep backwards compatibility.
--Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burwell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Merge request: Merging api_refactoring on master > > Alex, > > Is the refactoring based on JAX-RS or does it still use the custom > REST mechanism? > > Thanks, > -John > > 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
