The tests and all other details of the HttpEngine should only be in
the http-engine module.  I'm not sure where your rt issue is.

J

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Srihari Srinivasan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Jacques,
>
> I made some progress on this today. I have a generic DrillbitService class
> which is part of the exec module. This is implemented by HttpEngine. For
> the cp scanning bit I was hoping we could use DrillbitConfig itself. I want
> to do something like -
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *       config.getInstanceOf("drill.exec.http.implementation",
> DrillbitService.class); // The key "**drill.exec.http.implementation" is
> mapped to the actual class*
>
> I think this should work as long as the class is found in the cp. But in
> the build order http-engine gets built after java-exec and hence I get a
> ClassNotFound while running the tests. The compile time issue is gone but
> the runtime issue is still there. Any ideas on how to workaround this?
>
> *
> *Hari
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Srihari Srinivasan <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I won't be able to join the stand up today. My update for the week - I'll
>> continue to work on getting the HttpEngine to integrate with the Drillbit
>> class based on the approach suggested by Jacques.
>>
>> -- Hari
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Srihari Srinivasan <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> This should be possible. I'll try and see how it goes!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suggest you define a generic Drill bit Service interface that receives
>>>> the drill configuration and is started/stopped and then use drill module
>>>> conf and cp scanning similar to how we incorporate CallProviders or
>>>> DrillFuncs. Then switch the dependency direction using the pom snippet I
>>>> provided and have your service implement this new interface..
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> On Jul 27, 2013 6:32 AM, "Srihari Srinivasan" <[email protected]
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The HttpEngine class which encapsulates the Jetty server is
>>>> instantiated
>>>> > from the Drillbit class to start the web server. So java-exec depends
>>>> on
>>>> > http-engine.
>>>> >
>>>> > Happy to have a quick hangout on this if you have the time...
>>>> >
>>>> > Hari
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > I didn't realize that.  Why do you have that dependency?
>>>> > > On Jul 27, 2013 5:04 AM, "Srihari Srinivasan" <
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> > >
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > If I understand correctly what you are suggesting is we add the
>>>> snippet
>>>> > > > below in the http-engine's pom file. Since I already have java-exec
>>>> > > depend
>>>> > > > on http-engine won't this make it a case of having cyclic
>>>> dependencies
>>>> > > that
>>>> > > > mvn will complain about?
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Hari
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>>> [email protected]>
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Let's get an alpha out before we break out the client.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In the meantime, I downloaded your stuff and it seemed to work
>>>> fine
>>>> > > > > when it depends on java-exec.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I'd suggest you use the dependency like this to avoid any weird
>>>> > > > conflicts:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >         <dependency>
>>>> > > > >           <groupId>org.apache.drill.exec</groupId>
>>>> > > > >           <artifactId>java-exec</artifactId>
>>>> > > > >           <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>>>> > > > >           <exclusions>
>>>> > > > >             <exclusion>
>>>> > > > >               <artifactId>jsp-api-2.1</artifactId>
>>>> > > > >               <groupId>org.mortbay.jetty</groupId>
>>>> > > > >             </exclusion>
>>>> > > > >             <exclusion>
>>>> > > > >               <artifactId>jetty</artifactId>
>>>> > > > >               <groupId>org.mortbay.jetty</groupId>
>>>> > > > >             </exclusion>
>>>> > > > >           </exclusions>
>>>> > > > >         </dependency>
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Srihari Srinivasan
>>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> > > > > > Hi All,
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Any thoughts on the DrillClient modularization/short term
>>>> > > alternative?
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Hari
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> > > > > > From: Srihari Srinivasan <[email protected]>
>>>> > > > > > Date: Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:33 PM
>>>> > > > > > Subject: Re: Meeting today
>>>> > > > > > To: [email protected]
>>>> > > > > > Cc: [email protected]
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Hi,
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Quick note on what we discussed w.r.t the REST API.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > I am at a point where to submit a query (logical for now) to
>>>> the
>>>> > > > > Drillbit I
>>>> > > > > > need an instance of the DrillClient class from the Query REST
>>>> > > resource.
>>>> > > > > > DrillClient is currently part of the java-exec module. I've
>>>> pulled
>>>> > > out
>>>> > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > jersey/jetty stuff into its own mvn module to keep the concerns
>>>> > > > separate.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > So the really question is - Is now a good time to pull out
>>>> > > DrillClient
>>>> > > > > and
>>>> > > > > > its dependencies into its own client module? That way
>>>> http-engine
>>>> > can
>>>> > > > > just
>>>> > > > > > depend on the client lib. Having this will be a huge help as
>>>> it can
>>>> > > > > > potentially keep a parallel stream of working going.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Any other ideas/suggestions?
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Jason - This is the link to my github
>>>> > > > > > branch<https://github.com/srihari/incubator-drill>.
>>>> > > > > > Its still a clone of the execwork branch.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > -- Hari
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>>> > [email protected]>
>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >> Sounds good to me.
>>>> > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Srihari Srinivasan
>>>> > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> > > > > >> > HI Folks,
>>>> > > > > >> >
>>>> > > > > >> > Moving on I am trying to implement the functionality that
>>>> > creates
>>>> > > a
>>>> > > > > query
>>>> > > > > >> > via the REST interface. I have a question w.r.t its
>>>> > > implementation.
>>>> > > > > One
>>>> > > > > >> way
>>>> > > > > >> > to implement this would be via the DrillClient class by
>>>> calling
>>>> > > its
>>>> > > > > >> > runQuery(QueryType) method as illustrated in
>>>> > > > > TestDistributedFragmentRun.
>>>> > > > > >> >
>>>> > > > > >> > Does this approach make sense? Should we be considering any
>>>> > other
>>>> > > > > >> > alternatives?
>>>> > > > > >> >
>>>> > > > > >> > Hari
>>>> > > > > >>
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Reply via email to