I don’t see one :(
On October 11, 2017 at 20:54:33, Michael Miklavcic (
michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote:
I attached a PDF - shows up on my end. Is that not coming through?
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think there is a missing attachment?
>
>
> On October 11, 2017 at 20:22:33, Michael Miklavcic (
> michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> For community reference, here is a class diagram that depicts our current
> Metron 0.4.1 dependencies, for both prod and test code, against the old ES
> client APIs along with an "after" diagram showing the world with the new
> client. Feedback welcome.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I agree with what Michael "fine whine" Miklavcic said; I'm in favor
>> of the high level client.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
>> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Justin, thanks for the feedback! I'm inclined to agree with you about
>> using
>> > the high level client. It's a bummer that we still need to do jar
>> shading,
>> > but I think that's a reasonable short term sacrifice considering the
>> other
>> > benefits. And they're angling towards slowly removing the ES core dep
>> over
>> > time anyhow so, like myself, this will get better with age.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Do we intend on (or have interest in) supporting ES across major
>> version
>> > > for a given version of Metron? I'm not convinced it's worth the work
>> of
>> > > using the low level client.
>> > >
>> > > This really only seems useful for ES clusters that are being used
>> outside
>> > > Metron and need to be on a different ES major version. Is that a use
>> case
>> > > we want/need to support? I'm willing to bet it's significantly more
>> work
>> > > and means we're modifying queries and even templates/mappings based on
>> > what
>> > > ES version we're interacting with (e.g. meta alerts in 5.x can
>> exploit a
>> > > query param to not screw around with the mapping, but that param
>> doesn't
>> > > exist in 2.x). At that point, we're either back to writing for ES 2.x
>> or
>> > > writing for every version of ES.
>> > >
>> > > Unless that's something we have a demand for (or someone else
>> persuades
>> > me
>> > > otherwise), I'm in favor of using the high level client. It seems
>> like
>> > > it'd be easier to migrate to also, given the similarities API-wise to
>> the
>> > > current client we're using.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
>> > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I think it might help the discussion to share my impressions of
>> looking
>> > > > over the new API recommendations from ES. I've summarized some info
>> > > > provided by ES back in December 2016 regarding the reasons for
>> > switching
>> > > to
>> > > > a new client model. [1]
>> > > >
>> > > > *Summary points:*
>> > > >
>> > > > Pre-5.x had Java API - binary exchange format used for node-to-node
>> > > > communications.
>> > > > In 5.x a low level REST API was added. Now there's also a high level
>> > REST
>> > > > client that handles request marshalling and response un-marshalling.
>> > > >
>> > > > *Benefits of existing Java API*
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. Theoretically faster - binary format, no JSON parsing
>> > > > 2. Hardened, used for internal ES node to node communications
>> > > >
>> > > > *Cons of Java API*
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. Benchmarks show it's not really that much faster.
>> > > > 2. Backwards compatibility - Java API changes often.
>> > > > 3. Upgrades more challenging - need to refactor client code for
>> new
>> > > and
>> > > > deprecated features.
>> > > > 4. Minor releases may contain breaking changes in the Java API
>> > > > 5. Client and server *should* be on same JVM version (not as
>> > important
>> > > > post 2.x, but still potentially necessary bc of serialization
>> > w/binary
>> > > > format)
>> > > > 6. Requires dependency on the entire elasticsearch server in
>> order
>> > to
>> > > > use the client. We end up shading jars.
>> > > >
>> > > > *Benefits of new REST API*
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. Upgrades
>> > > > 1. Breaking changes only made in major releases - "We are very
>> > > > careful with backwards compatibility on the REST layer where
>> > > breaking
>> > > > changes are made only in major releases."
>> > > > 2. "The REST interface is much more stable and can be upgraded
>> > out
>> > > of
>> > > > step with the Elasticsearch cluster."
>> > > > 2. REST client and server can be on different JVM's
>> > > > 3. Dependencies for the low level client are very slim. No need
>> for
>> > > > shading.
>> > > > 4. The RestHighLevelClient supports the same request and response
>> > > > objects as the TransportClient
>> > > > 5. Can be secured via HTTPS
>> > > >
>> > > > There are some additional benefits to the new API, however they
>> depend
>> > on
>> > > > whether we choose to go with the high or low level client. More
>> > comments
>> > > > below.
>> > > >
>> > > > *Cons of new API*
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. Dependencies - The high level client still requires the full
>> ES
>> > > > dependency, though this will slim down in future releases.
>> > > >
>> > > > *Other comments specific to Metron*
>> > > >
>> > > > There's a question of whether we should use the low or high level
>> REST
>> > > > client. The main differences between the two are how they handle lib
>> > > > dependencies and marshaling/unmarshaling. The low level client
>> cleans
>> > up
>> > > > the dependencies dramatically, whereas the high level client still
>> > > requires
>> > > > you to depend on elasticsearch core. On the other hand, the low
>> level
>> > > > client does no work to handle marshaling/unmarshaling the
>> > > > requests/responses from the HTTP calls while the high level client
>> > > handles
>> > > > this for you and exposes api-specific methods. The high level client
>> > > > accepts the same request arguments as the TransportClient and
>> returns
>> > the
>> > > > same response objects. One more thing to note is that the low level
>> > > client
>> > > > claims to be compatible with all versions of ES whereas the high
>> level
>> > > > client appears to be only major version compatible.
>> > > >
>> > > > "The 5.6 client can communicate with any 5.6.x Elasticsearch node.
>> > > Previous
>> > > > 5.x minor versions like 5.5.x, 5.4.x etc. are not (fully)
>> supported."
>> > [2]
>> > > >
>> > > > Just as an example, here's a simple comparison of an index request
>> in
>> > the
>> > > > low and high level API's.
>> > > >
>> > > > *Low Level*
>> > > >
>> > > > Map<String, String> params = Collections.emptyMap();
>> > > > String jsonString = "{" +
>> > > > "\"user\":\"kimchy\"," +
>> > > > "\"postDate\":\"2013-01-30\"," +
>> > > > "\"message\":\"trying out Elasticsearch\"" +
>> > > > "}";
>> > > > HttpEntity entity = new NStringEntity(jsonString,
>> > > > ContentType.APPLICATION_JSON);
>> > > > Response response = restClient.performRequest("PUT",
>> "/posts/doc/1",
>> > > > params, entity);
>> > > >
>> > > > *High Level*
>> > > >
>> > > > IndexRequest indexRequest = new IndexRequest("posts", "doc", "1")
>> > > > .source("user", "kimchy",
>> > > > "postDate", new Date(),
>> > > > "message", "trying out Elasticsearch");
>> > > >
>> > > > *Note*: there are a few ways to do this with the high level API, but
>> > this
>> > > > was the most concise for me to offer a comparison of benefits over
>> the
>> > > low
>> > > > level API.
>> > > >
>> > > > *Thoughts/Recommendations*: I do think we should migrate to the new
>> > API.
>> > > I
>> > > > think the question is which of the new APIs we should use. The high
>> > level
>> > > > client seems to shield us from having to deal with constructing
>> special
>> > > > JSON handling code, whereas the low level client handles all
>> versions
>> > of
>> > > > ES. I don't have a good feel (yet) for just how much work it would
>> > > require
>> > > > to use the low level API, or how difficult it would be to add new
>> > request
>> > > > features in the future. Actually, we could probably leverage
>> existing
>> > > code
>> > > > we have for dealing with JSON maps, so this might be really easy.
>> > Someone
>> > > > with more experience in Metron's ES client use might have a better
>> idea
>> > > of
>> > > > the pros and cons to this. The high level client appears to handle
>> > > > everything all JSON manipulation for us, but we lose the benefit of
>> a
>> > > > simpler dependency tree and support for all versions of ES. My only
>> > > concern
>> > > > with "supports all versions" is that I have to imagine there are
>> > specific
>> > > > calls that we'd have to be careful of when constructing the JSON
>> > > requests,
>> > > > so it's unclear to me if this is better or worse in the end.
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > > Mike
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. https://www.elastic.co/blog/state-of-the-official-
>> > > > elasticsearch-java-clients
>> > > > 2. https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/client/java-
>> > > > rest/current/java-rest-high-compatibility.html
>> > > > <https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/client/java-
>> > > > rest/current/java-rest-high-compatibility.html>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
>> > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I am working on upgrading Elasticsearch and Kibana. There are
>> quite a
>> > > few
>> > > > > changes involved with this vix. I believe I'm mostly finished with
>> > the
>> > > > > Ambari mpack side of things, however we currently only support one
>> > > > version
>> > > > > with no backwards compatibility. What is the community's thoughts
>> on
>> > > > this?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Here is some work contributed to the community that I'm
>> referencing
>> > > while
>> > > > > working on this upgrade - https://github.com/apache/
>> > > > metron/pull/619/files
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best,
>> > > > > Michael Miklavcic
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
