I feel like CloudSolrClient doesn't imply anything about HTTP 1 or 2, anything about Apache or Jetty (or java.net.http). If we have exposed those internal details in some ways, then that is unfortunate and should be addressed.
I personally never use CloudHttp2SolrClient because I kind of assumed that it was an implementation detail and the various builders would give me the http2 client when I needed it. Maybe that's not the case. I've never thought about it too much. CloudSolrClient looks like the "simpler" one to use so that's what people gravitate towards. A quick look in my editor suggests that we have 100 uses of CloudSolrClient, including some in the ref guide. If we want to deprecate this, then we should update our documentation to guide people away from it as well. I suspect that if we try to examine which uses of CloudSolrClient in our code could just be SolrClient, we wouldn't make much progress on this though. I know this isn't offering much in the way of solutions, but I'm mostly trying to say that I agree it is a problem. Mike On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:05 AM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:47 AM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > >> I re-opened SOLR-15223 to highlight that we are still blocked by this >> decision. >> >> I don't clearly see the full effects of your suggestion right now. Does >> your proposal also involve deprecating CloudHttp2SolrClient as a separate >> class? >> > > No; it would stay. Perhaps ideally it would have a name reflecting it > uses the Jetty client but no big deal; it can stay as-is. Its name already > isn't necessarily true; you can use this class (and thus the Jetty client) > and tell it not to use Http2 :-). I'm reminded that HdfsDirectory doesn't > require HDFS :-). (It requires the HDFS client libs but not necessarily an > HDFS backend, if you're curious). > > >> I would imagine users with existing SolrJ code would after upgrading get >> an instance of BaseCloudSolrClient (with a new name) using Jetty client >> under the hood? What if that application code assumes org.apache.http as >> client and tries to obtain HttpSolrClient and even org.apache.http objects >> based on CloudSolrClient? The code would fail since the contract is broken. >> > > If the client/user truly assumes org.apache.http well clearly they will be > disrupted by this change. You want to call that a "contract" -- shrug; I > call it an implementation detail that can change :-). They may be calling > getLbClient and may be using the LBHttpSolrClient subclass of LBSolrClient, > perhaps. Or similarly specifying builder options relating to this advanced > option. It's possible and it's undeniable _some_ clients will be > impacted. We can only hypothesize _why_ a client is dependent in the first > place (vs. perhaps an accidental dependency/assumption e.g. in dependency > management). Perhaps to tweak/tune advanced options, timeouts. Perhaps to > instrument mTLS details; although I know from experience it can be done > without calling special methods on builders; it can be done via setting > special system properties referring to one's own classes that are called in > certain ways. If you do that (and we have), the way to do it for the > Apache based client differs from Jetty; we've done it for both because Solr > uses both internally. Anyway, this is off the beaten path of most users. > > >> >> With the current pure deprecation and switch to CloudHttp2SolrClient, >> existing users' code would continue to work.. >> > > Hey, this is a major release; let's not hold ourselves to a standard that > is too onerous for us to maintain. We can make our intentions clear in > upgrade notes. > > ~ David > > >> Jan >> >> >> 14. mar. 2022 kl. 15:40 skrev David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org>: >> >> I want to bring an important SolrJ decision to the dev list. >> >> There's a JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15223 >> "Deprecate HttpSolrClient and friends in 9.0" >> >> Sounds great by the title -- we want to transition over time to the Jetty >> client instead. Jan submitted a PR to deprecate CloudSolrClient and some >> others, and I approved it because these classes intimately assume the >> Apache HttpClient. It's merged. >> >> But I have serious doubts now and wish to discuss it with the dev list. >> Copying my last message on the issue: >> >> Now that I'm "seeing" the results of this in my IDE, seeing the >>> cross-through of deprecated usage on innocent looking classes like >>> CloudSolrClient in particular, I have doubts on the approach. >>> "CloudSolrClient" is an intuitive/obvious name to a user that wants to talk >>> to SolrCloud. The particulars of which HTTP protocol or wether the client >>> is using whatever HTTP library is all an implementation detail. Ideally >>> such decisions would be done in the builder, either a common builder or if >>> not then a builder specific to those libraries if needed (less nice but >>> acceptable IMO). >>> >>> The easiest way to get there is to rename CloudSolrClient to >>> CloudHttp1SolrClient in one commit (merge it) and then rename >>> BaseCloudSolrClient to simply CloudSolrClient in the next. Then add a >>> Builder to this class that is the one in Http2; subclass it or something >>> (details TBD). >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Of course, today they are separated by their classes. Maybe we should >>> simply convey the deprecation intent in the upgrade notes as an advanced >>> warning, but not deprecate CloudSolrClient in particular. >>> >> >> Jan replied: >> >> Since we did not deprecate these in 8.x, we still have a back-compat >>> promise to keep these classes around in 9.x, and thus also the old http >>> client. But perhaps we are breaking that promise already in SOLR-16061 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-16061>, so maybe we can >>> change even more >>> >>> I don't like the CloudHttp2SolrClient naming either, would prefer the >>> Http client to be abstracted away so that it could be swapped out as an >>> impl detail, but it was not designed that way. I fear that re-using the >>> same class name but with slightly different contract is harder to explain >>> than a clear deprecation message in the IDE pointing you to the replacement. >>> >>> Perhaps the one client to rule them all in 10.0 should be >>> ClusterSolrClient? And aim for it to be constructed with either a Jetty >>> client or JDK8-HttpClient as backbone through different factories/builder? >>> >> >> How is the contract between CloudSolrClient & BaseCloudSolrClient >> different Jan? I suspect if there's breakage, it'd be relatively obscure >> options on the builder. >> >> ~ David Smiley >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >> >> >>
