I too agree that the discussion has veered off from the original topic. Why can't LIBRARY_JARS be used for this, albeit with a minor improvement? Currently, our attribute layering is an override, so if you have an attribute that is specified as apex.application.<appname>.attr.<attrname> it overrides apex.attr.<attrname> for that application. What if were to expand the attribute definition to allow for the specification of how the layering of attributes will be combined, override being one option, merge being another with these being implemented with a combiner interface? This way a set of common jars could be specified using dt.attr.LIBRARY_JARS and applications can still add extra jars on top.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > IMO, support for Kubernetes, Docker images, Mesos and anything outside of > Yarn deployments is a topic by itself and design for such support needs to > be discussed. I do not want to propose any specific design, but assume that > logic to create proper execution environment would be coded into Apex > client. Whether it (hardcoded logic to create an execution environment) can > be expressed simply as a list of dependent classes or jars is at minimum > questionable. Until design is proposed and agreed upon, I'd prefer to use > plugins for the subject. > > Thank you, > > Vlad > > > On 2/2/18 13:17, Sanjay Pujare wrote: > >> In cases where we have an "über" docker image containing support for >> multiple execution environments it might be useful for the Apex core to >> infer what kind of execution environment to use for a particular >> invocation (say based on configuration values/environment variables) and >> in that case the core will load the corresponding libraries. And I think >> this kind of flexibility or support would be difficult through the plugins >> hence I think Sergey's proposal will be useful. >> >> Sanjay >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Sergey Golovko <ser...@datatorrent.com> >> wrote: >> >> Unfortunately the moving of .apa file to a docker image cannot resolve all >>> problems with the dependencies. If we assume an Apex application should >>> be >>> run in different execution environments, the application docker image >>> must >>> contain all possible execution environment dependencies. >>> >>> I think the better way is to assume that the original application docker >>> image like the current .apa file should contain the application specific >>> dependencies only. And some smart client tool should create the >>> executable >>> application docker image form the original one and include the execution >>> specific environment dependencies into the target application docker >>> image. >>> It means anyway an smart client Apex tool should have an interface to >>> define different environment dependencies or combination of different >>> dimensions of the environment dependencies. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sergey >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> The current dependencies are based on how Apex YARN client works. YARN >>>> depends on a DFS implementation for deployment (not necessarily HDFS). >>>> >>>> I think a better way to look at this is to consider that instead of an >>>> >>> .apa >>> >>>> file the application is a docker image, which would contain Apex and all >>>> dependencies that the "StramClient" today adds for YARN. >>>> >>>> In that world there would be no Apex CLI or Apex specific client. >>>> >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Sergey Golovko <ser...@datatorrent.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree. It can be implemented with usage of plugins. But if I need to >>>>> enable and configurate the plugin I need to put this information into >>>>> dt-site.xml. It means The plugin and its parameter must be documented >>>>> >>>> and >>> >>>> the list of the added specific jars will be visible and available for >>>>> updates to the end-user. The implementation via plugins is more dynamic >>>>> solution that is more convenient for the application developers. But >>>>> >>>> I'm >>> >>>> talking about the static configuration of the Apex build or >>>>> >>>> installation >>> >>>> that relates more to the platform development. >>>>> >>>>> The current Apex core implementation uses the static unchanged list of >>>>> >>>> jars >>>> >>>>> for long time, because the Apex implementation still contains several >>>>> >>>> basic >>>> >>>>> static assumptions (for instance, the usage of YARN, HDSF, etc.). And >>>>> >>>> the >>> >>>> current Apex assumptions are hardcoded in the implementation. But if we >>>>> >>>> are >>>> >>>>> going to improve Apex and use Java interfaces in generic Apex >>>>> implementation, the current static approach in Apex code to hardcode a >>>>> >>>> list >>>> >>>>> of dependent jars will not work anymore. It will require to include a >>>>> >>>> new >>> >>>> solution to add/change jars in specific Apex builds/configurations. >>>>> >>>> And I >>> >>>> don't think the usage of the plugins will be good for that. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Sergey >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There is a way to get the same end result by using plugins. It will >>>>>> >>>>> be >>> >>>> good to understand why plugin can't be used and can they be extended >>>>>> >>>>> to >>> >>>> provide the required functionality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Vlad >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/29/18 15:14, Sergey Golovko wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In Apex there are two ways to deploy non-Hadoop jars to the deployed >>>>>>> cluster. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The first approach is static (hardcoded) and it is used by Apex >>>>>>> >>>>>> platform >>>> >>>>> developers only. There are several final static arrays of Java >>>>>>> >>>>>> classes >>> >>>> in StramClient.java >>>>>>> that define which of the available jars should be included into >>>>>>> >>>>>> deployment >>>>> >>>>>> for every Apex application. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The second approach is to add paths of all dependent jar-files to >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>> value >>>>>>> of the attribute LIB_JARS. The end-user can set/update the value of >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> attribute LIB_JARS via dt-site.xml files, command line parameters, >>>>>>> application properties and plugins. The usage of the >>>>>>> attribute LIB_JARS is the official documented way for all Apex users >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>> >>>>> manage by the deployment jars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But some of the dependent jars (not from the Apex core) can be >>>>>>> >>>>>> common >>> >>>> for >>>>> >>>>>> all customer's applications for a specific installation and/or >>>>>>> >>>>>> execution >>>> >>>>> environment. Unfortunately the Apex implementation does not contain >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> middle solution that would allow the Apex developers and customer >>>>>>> >>>>>> support >>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>>> define and add new dependent jar-files (jars that should not be >>>>>>> configurable/managed by the end-user) without the >>>>>>> >>>>>> updates/recompilation >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>> the Apex Java code during the Apex building process and/or >>>>>>> installation/configuration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also the having of such kind of flexibility would allow the Apex >>>>>>> >>>>>> core >>> >>>> developers to use Java interfaces during the development to define >>>>>>> >>>>>> an >>> >>>> abstraction layer in Apex implementation and configurate Apex core >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>> >>>> add >>>>> >>>>>> some specific jars to all Apex applications without recompilation of >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> Apex source code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For instance, now the usage of HDFS is hardcoded in Apex platform >>>>>>> >>>>>> code >>> >>>> but >>>>> >>>>>> it can be replaced with any other distributed or cloud base file >>>>>>> >>>>>> system. >>>> >>>>> The Apex core code can use an interface for all I/O operations but >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>> supporting of a real specific file system implementation can be >>>>>>> >>>>>> added >>> >>>> as >>>> >>>>> an >>>>>>> independent jar-file. Or if the implementation of some of Apex >>>>>>> >>>>>> operators >>>> >>>>> depend on a specific service, and it is necessary to add some of the >>>>>>> service jars to every Apex application implicitly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The proposal: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - add a predefined configuration text file (we can make any choice >>>>>>> >>>>>> for >>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> file syntax: XML, JSON or Properties) to Apex engine resources with >>>>>>> predefined values of some of the Apex attributes (now we can include >>>>>>> LIB_JARS >>>>>>> attribute only); >>>>>>> - allow to have a configuration text file with the same >>>>>>> >>>>>> functionality >>> >>>> in >>>> >>>>> the Apex installation folder "conf"; >>>>>>> - read the content of the predefined configuration text files by the >>>>>>> >>>>>> stram >>>>> >>>>>> client in runtime and add the jars to the list of the dependent >>>>>>> >>>>>> jars; >>> >>>> - allow to use paths to jars and Java classes to refer to the >>>>>>> >>>>>> dependent >>>> >>>>> jars (the references can have the extensions: .class and .jar). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Sergey >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >
