> Regarding client generation. I am not completely sure I am getting this > point. Is not there already SidecarClient class in Java, in the client > artifact, written manually, to call all the endpoints programmatically? So if > we had this artifact, what would be wrong with using that as a dependency in > cli? I just do not see why we would want to generate it again. What is the > purpose of SidecarClient then if not being used for cases like this?
Yes, there is. What I am interested in here is to explore the possibility of just ditching that “manually” maintained class in favor of auto generated artifacts. That class is a Java client. If we can have official clients for other languages coming out of the openAPI spec, I think we should at least explore that. > There would also need to be some extra sauce around this as "sidecar-cli" can > be pointed to different clusters so there would need to be some "context > switching" done as well, I guess. Yeah, and that should also be part of the openAPI spec. Similar answer for Francisco’s comment around authentication mechanisms. The current OpenAPI spec is probably not complete as it doesn’t describe auth mechanisms, but that is something that can be added as well: https://learn.openapis.org/specification/security.html Regards, Bernardo > On Sep 2, 2025, at 12:11 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: > > Bulk API, yes. Definitely a good point. No reason to do the coordination in > the CLI. Operations like "set guardrails" are very good candidates for that. > Not so much for "restart" as that is another type of an operation done a > little bit differently (albeit inherently coordinated as well). > > Regarding client generation. I am not completely sure I am getting this > point. Is not there already SidecarClient class in Java, in the client > artifact, written manually, to call all the endpoints programmatically? So if > we had this artifact, what would be wrong with using that as a dependency in > cli? I just do not see why we would want to generate it again. What is the > purpose of SidecarClient then if not being used for cases like this? > > There would also need to be some extra sauce around this as "sidecar-cli" can > be pointed to different clusters so there would need to be some "context > switching" done as well, I guess. > > How I see it is that cli would be the part of Sidecar repository, no > standalone project / repository. So it would share its release lifecycle / > versioning. Same way nodetool is part of a concrete Cassandra version (even > though one could technically use nodetool to connect to a cluster of a > different version and some operations would work, it is in general not a good > idea to mix nodetool from one Cassandra version against Cassandra node of > another version). > > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 4:08 AM Bernardo Botella <conta...@bernardobotella.com > <mailto:conta...@bernardobotella.com>> wrote: >> Yes to a Sidecar CLI. As Yifan mentioned, I think we should leverage the >> OpenAPI specs yo autogenerate clients for different languages. I also see >> this being a separate subproject consuming this spec to generate release CLI >> artifacts, but I guess having separate subproject may come with some other >> different logistic challenges. >> >> Bulk type operational calls using the CLI leveraging CEP-53 is, in my >> opinion, the natural next step for this. >> >> Bernardo >> >>> El sept 1, 2025, a las 3:26 p. m., Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org >>> <mailto:djo...@apache.org>> escribió: >>> >>> +1 on the sidecar-cli and cluster-wide operations. Like Yifan said, >>> cluster-wide operations should be delegated to the C* Sidecar. The recent >>> CEP-53 for rolling restarts is an example of a cluster-wide operation and >>> was one of the original goal of CIP/CEP-1. >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 11:33 AM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:yc25c...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> I see the “guardrail by sidecar” as a feature can be leveraged by >>>> Sidecar’s (cluster-wide) bulk-api capability. It is not implemented, but >>>> planned. Rather than handling cluster-wide operations in the CLI, bulk api >>>> seems like a better fit. The client (CLI) just needs to call the API. In >>>> other words, the Sidecar server acts as the coordinator, not the client. >>>> >>>> - Yifan >>>> >>>> From: Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com <mailto:yc25c...@gmail.com>> >>>> Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 10:25:52 AM >>>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org> >>>> <dev@cassandra.apache.org <mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org>> >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CLI for Sidecar and Guardrails By Sidecar >>>> >>>> I agree a CLI could unlock new use cases and help ops, but I’m a bit >>>> concerned about adding another interface for Sidecar to maintain on top of >>>> REST and the Client SDK. It cloud also create another potential attack >>>> surface and versioning challenge. >>>> >>>> Since Sidecar already vends an OpenAPI spec, maybe the CLI could be >>>> generated from that instead. The generator could live outside the repo >>>> (e.g. something like restish <https://github.com/rest-sh/restish>, though >>>> I haven’t used it myself). >>>> >>>> - Yifan >>>> >>>> From: Francisco Guerrero <fran...@apache.org <mailto:fran...@apache.org>> >>>> Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 7:42:36 AM >>>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org> >>>> <dev@cassandra.apache.org <mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org>> >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CLI for Sidecar and Guardrails By Sidecar >>>> >>>> Hi Stefan, >>>> >>>> I think the CLI is the natural evolution for the Sidecar Java client and it >>>> will help simplify the management of Cassandra. >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this up to the mailing list. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> - Francisco >>>> >>>> On 2025/09/01 10:09:55 Štefan Miklošovič wrote: >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > I just ask two questions / discuss two topics at once to save time for >>>> > everybody. >>>> > >>>> > 1) CLI >>>> > >>>> > Seeing CEP-53 (and not only that), I am just asking myself, how are >>>> > operators actually going to use this on a daily basis when there are >>>> > "just >>>> > endpoints" exposed? Somebody has to call them, right? What kind of >>>> > tooling >>>> > do you plan to have for this? Are you going to literally call endpoints, >>>> > crafting the bodies etc? Hardly. >>>> > >>>> > So my idea is ... why not to have a Sidecar CLI? A command line tool >>>> > which, >>>> > when invoked, would call these endpoints for you? For example when CEP-53 >>>> > is in place which is going to restart the cluster, I would love to use >>>> > something like >>>> > >>>> > $ sidecar-cli restart >>>> > >>>> > and be done with it? >>>> > >>>> > Then it would also display the progress and so on. >>>> > >>>> > I can imagine this would be used for other endpoints going to happen / >>>> > which are already there. We would have basically "nodetool for sidecar". >>>> > >>>> > 2) >>>> > >>>> > Guardrails are configured by YAML / JMX / nodetool (by >>>> > get/setguardrailsconfig added recently). However, this is still done _per >>>> > node_. >>>> > >>>> > Building on top of 1), could not we have >>>> > >>>> > $ sidecar-cli setguardrail xyx false >>>> > >>>> > which would basically call it for every node in the cluster? Sidecar can >>>> > just call whatever it wants. No point doing it per node by nodetool if >>>> > one >>>> > deploys Sidecar. >>>> > >>>> > We could also have an endpoint which would display any discrepancies when >>>> > it comes to guardrails. E.g. we would know that a guardrail is configured >>>> > the same way, cluster-wide. Right now, you need to go node by node and >>>> > check it yourself: >>>> > >>>> > $ sidecar-cli guardrails --diff >>>> > >>>> > Would show which guardrails are not the same everywhere with nodes it >>>> > differs so you can fix this if you want. >>>> > >>>> > Regards >>>> > >>
