Hi Alex The idea is great. But I have some concerns that probably should be taken into account for design:
1. We need to have the ability to stop a task execution, smth like OP_COMPUTE_CANCEL_TASK operation (client to server) 2. What's about task execution timeout? It may help to the cluster survival for buggy tasks 3. Ignite doesn't have roles/authorization functionality for now. But a task is the risky operation for cluster (for security reasons). Could we add for Ignite configuration new options: - Explicit turning on for compute task support for thin protocol (disabled by default) for whole cluster - Explicit turning on for compute task support for a node - The list of task names (classes) allowed to execute by thin client. 4. Support the labeling for task that may help to investigate issues on cluster (the idea from IEP-34 [1]) 1. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-34+Thin+client%3A+transactions+support On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:58 AM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Igniters! > > I have plans to start implementation of Compute interface for Ignite thin > client and want to discuss features that should be implemented. > > We already have Compute implementation for binary-rest clients > (GridClientCompute), which have the following functionality: > - Filtering cluster nodes (projection) for compute > - Executing task by the name > > I think we can implement this functionality in a thin client as well. > > First of all, we need some operation types to request a list of all > available nodes and probably node attributes (by a list of nodes). Node > attributes will be helpful if we will decide to implement analog of > ClusterGroup#forAttribute or ClusterGroup#forePredicate methods in the thin > client. Perhaps they can be requested lazily. > > From the protocol point of view there will be two new operations: > > OP_CLUSTER_GET_NODES > Request: empty > Response: long topologyVersion, int minorTopologyVersion, int nodesCount, > for each node set of node fields (UUID nodeId, Object or String > consistentId, long order, etc) > > OP_CLUSTER_GET_NODE_ATTRIBUTES > Request: int nodesCount, for each node: UUID nodeId > Response: int nodesCount, for each node: int attributesCount, for each node > attribute: String name, Object value > > To execute tasks we need something like these methods in the client API: > Object execute(String task, Object arg) > Future<Object> executeAsync(String task, Object arg) > Object affinityExecute(String task, String cache, Object key, Object arg) > Future<Object> affinityExecuteAsync(String task, String cache, Object key, > Object arg) > > Which can be mapped to protocol operations: > > OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK > Request: UUID nodeId, String taskName, Object arg > Response: Object result > > OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK_AFFINITY > Request: String cacheName, Object key, String taskName, Object arg > Response: Object result > > The second operation is needed because we sometimes can't calculate and > connect to affinity node on the client-side (affinity awareness can be > disabled, custom affinity function can be used or there can be no > connection between client and affinity node), but we can make best effort > to send request to target node if affinity awareness is enabled. > > Currently, on the server-side requests always processed synchronously and > responses are sent right after request was processed. To execute long tasks > async we should whether change this logic or introduce some kind two-way > communication between client and server (now only one-way requests from > client to server are allowed). > > Two-way communication can also be useful in the future if we will send some > server-side generated events to clients. > > In case of two-way communication there can be new operations introduced: > > OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK (from client to server) > Request: UUID nodeId, String taskName, Object arg > Response: long taskId > > OP_COMPUTE_TASK_FINISHED (from server to client) > Request: taskId, Object result > Response: empty > > The same for affinity requests. > > Also, we can implement not only execute task operation, but some other > operations from IgniteCompute (broadcast, run, call), but it will be useful > only for java thin client. And even with java thin client we should whether > implement peer-class-loading for thin clients (this also requires two-way > client-server communication) or put classes with executed closures to the > server locally. > > What do you think about proposed protocol changes? > Do we need two-way requests between client and server? > Do we need support of compute methods other than "execute task"? > What do you think about peer-class-loading for thin clients? > -- Sergey Kozlov GridGain Systems www.gridgain.com