Hi, Unless somebody really wants to advocate for calling the next release 4.0 - and there's been no sign thus far - let's consider the matter decided: we'll call the next release 3.16.
I note that Launchpad will allow simply renaming the 4.0 series to 3.16 and the 4.0-beta milestone to 3.16-beta, so I suspect that little, if no actual retargeting of bugs will be necessary I will make those changes around 12 p.m. ET today. As a final comment, I suggest that since we are leaning towards treating 4.0 as a big-splash release, that the splash be something that is directly visible to end users. (In other words, I don't think that OpenSRF-related changes alone would count, though that is only a weakly-held opinion). Regards, Galen On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 10:24 AM Jason Stephenson via Evergreen-dev < evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote: > Hi, all. > > I agree with Mike, but with fewer reasons and less explanation. :) > > I think we ought to call the next release 3.16, and retartget any 4.0 bug > that have code committed. I am willing to do the latter job. > > Jason > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 12:45 PM Mike Rylander via Evergreen-dev < > evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote: > >> FWIW, I'm -1 on calling the next release 4.0 as of today, because the >> biggest planned change is probably the breaking-est -- the merge of >> OpenSRF and the xmpp-to-redis change -- and it's just not ready yet. >> >> I'll say up front that if we /don't/ merge OpenSRF into EG before the >> next release (and IMO we should not, based on the state of things >> today), and therefore force Redis, but we still want to call it 4.0 >> for other big reasons, I would definitely soften my -1 to -0.5 or >> less. >> >> If you don't care much about the details of the Redis stuff, that -^ >> is my top line thought on the "should we call it 4.0" question, and >> you can ignore the rest of my rant! ;) >> >> ------- >> >> I've been working on the opensrf-on-redis infrastructure for the last >> month or so with the goal of bringing back the HA and LB functionality >> that we got for free with XMPP. >> >> TL;DR: I'm close, but because of inherent foundational differences in >> the design and purpose of XMPP vs Redis, our code will simply have to >> be more complicated going forward. >> >> IMO, the major issues in (and the state of my changes compared to) >> origin/main of the opensrf repo, re redis are: >> >> * It's extremely complicated and labor intensive (and maybe >> impossible, but I only tried to make it work for a couple days) to >> configure multiple, separate but interacting OpenSRF domains across >> different Redis servers. At the other end of the spectrum, it's also >> impossible to configure multi-tenant redis servers. >> -- This is mainly a /configuration capabilities/ issue, not >> primarily a code issue, because Bill did add OpenSRF usernames and >> domains (xmpp domains, before; hosts that run redis, now) to the redis >> keys used by EG. The structure of the keys is not future-proof and >> doesn't follow redis key space pattern recommendations (at least WRT >> planning for Redis-level clustering, HA, and LB), but since it exists >> today we should be able to change the key structure later at a >> breaking upgrade event (or, whenever we want, if OpenSRF is merged >> into EG). However, having the "bus" account configuration duplicated >> externally, and configured using a single static file, is not tenable. >> ++ I've addressed this by adjusting the redis config requirements >> a little, and providing three new configuration modes, targeting use >> cases of different complexity/need: >> 1) Instead of leaving the redis server open and unprotected by >> default and trying to find the password in the "bus accounts" file, >> the Redis "requirepass" setting is used to supply the password for the >> "default" (admin/root/whatever) user. >> 2) osrf_control can receive that password from >> a) the REDISCLI_AUTH env variable -- generally securable from >> outside. >> b) a dedicated file's content -- at least the file can be >> locked down to a specific unix user. >> c) a command line option -- meh, handy for manual use, but >> shows up in `ps`. >> d) extracted from the "bus accounts file" from before, for >> back-compat. >> 3) Made configuring Redis users/ACLs more flexible: >> a) the existing "bus accounts file" mechanism continues to >> exist, but because the same file is applied to each domain it's not >> safe for an HA/LB env because it it's not domain- or user-aware. >> b) a TT2 template can be supplied; it is processed for each >> domain separately, so complicated setups can be encoded in the >> template -- this is intended to provide an HA/LB-safe version of (a). >> c) osrf_control can dynamically create the necessary ACLs for >> the router, service, client, and gateway users and keys specific to >> each domain -- this is the mechanism that has the broadest set of use >> cases, I think. >> d) OpenSRF can be told that Redis' built in ACL infrastructure >> (the "aclfile" Redis config file setting, and friends) will just >> handle it, and a bus reset request just issues an "ACL LOAD" command >> to tell redis to refresh ACLs in its native way -- this mechanism >> provides the most logical separation, and I think will be useful in >> highly controlled/automated environments that want to make use of the >> Redis-developer-intended tools for ACL config. >> >> * LB (cross-registration of OpenSRF domains) does not work >> -- The register and unregister commands add additional instances >> to an internal list of endpoints for each service, but the router >> always uses the first entry in the list. The effect is that all >> traffic gets shoveled to the first-registered instance (not >> necessarily the local one, mind) until that instance actively >> deregisters, then it moves to the next one that registered. >> ++ I've added list rotation. That works and is an obvious fix, of >> course, but it points out that the code is definitely not fully baked >> or feature-tested, and it's lacking existing fault tolerance at an >> infrastructure level. >> >> * HA does not work, and LB (when fixed as above) is not safe >> -- Even after addressing the LB part of the cross-registration >> functionality, there is no way to detect that a service instance >> previously registered is no longer available and should be removed >> from the delivery list. Because we're using redis LISTs to stand in >> for (effectively) stateful TCP sockets and receive buffers, we end up >> just tossing requests into the void and hoping that someone comes >> along to service them. Put another way, if a listener dies, we have >> no way of detecting that at the OpenSRF level and accounting for the >> failure. This makes LB /more/ dangerous: think something akin to >> split-brain DNS problems. Because we can't trust either our internal >> state or the message delivery information from redis. This is also >> something that we got 100% for free in XMPP, because message delivery >> to an actual endpoint was verified and we got an error when that >> failed, so we could resend to another service instance. Now the >> message just falls into the void on a LIST key that nobody is looking >> at. >> ++ I'm working on moving from LISTs to STREAMs for router and >> service keys. Other than the slight difference in surface-level >> commands, it's no harder to use streams than lists. What this will >> allow us to do is recheck the state of previously sent messages, and >> if 1) they're "stale" and 2) no service instance has claimed them for >> processing, we can retract the message from the stream, deregister the >> service instance behind the redis key on which the message went stale, >> and send it to another service instance. I have the baseline change >> from LISTs to STREAMs working now, modulo some debug-logging cleanup >> and chasing down a couple possible leaks and corner cases, but the >> redis docs are fighting me at every step. (Just ask separately if you >> want to hear more about that.) I also have a proof of concept version >> of the message retraction and resend code, but I really want to >> rewrite that using what I've learned (*sad face*) in the last few >> weeks about redis. >> >> * Infrastructure-level clustering isn't possible >> -- Whether ejabberd or Redis, infrastructure clustering (transparent >> HA at the infrastructure level) isn't "easy", and the hard parts have >> to live somewhere... In the XMPP world, that was mostly ejabberd's >> problem and it handled it well. Redis has the concept of clustering, >> but (so far) we've chosen to not only ignore that, but to construct >> things in such a way that the redis cluster stuff /cannot be used >> effectively/. I have no proof-of-concept code to address this, yet. >> We may never have the option to configure things to be as >> transparently robust in the redis world as we do today with ejabberd. >> That may not matter to most people most of the time, but it's a point >> I feel compelled to raise because it's definitely a loss to admins of >> large, complex, heavily automated installations (even if they're not >> aware of that loss). >> >> I'll be pushing up a branch covering the first two points this week or >> next, and hopefully be able to follow up with the HA fixes ASAP. >> >> Thanks for following my rant this far... :) >> >> -- >> Mike Rylander >> Research and Development Manager >> Equinox Open Library Initiative >> 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) >> work: mi...@equinoxoli.org >> personal: mrylan...@gmail.com >> https://equinoxOLI.org >> >> On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 7:22 PM Jeff Davis via Evergreen-dev >> <evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote: >> > >> > We've been talking about calling our next major release Evergreen 4.0, >> rather than 3.16. >> > >> > Is there a list of features that we want to include in a 4.0 release? >> Should we hold off on bumping the version number to 4.0 until those >> features are ready? >> > >> > Some candidates for "features that warrant going to 4.0": >> > - Making Angular circ the standard circ UI, rather than experimental. >> My understanding is that we don't expect that to happen in the next release. >> > - Merging OpenSRF into Evergreen (LP#2032835). We were waiting to >> replace ejabberd with Redis before doing that; Redis is now supported in >> Evergreen, but I don't know if anyone has revisited merging OpenSRF into EG >> since then. >> > - There are a number of bugs targeted to "4.0-beta" in Launchpad, but >> AFAIK they are just targeting the next major release, whether it's called >> 4.0 or not. >> > >> > Any opinions? I would prefer to reserve "4.0" for a release that is >> somehow "more" than just the next major release, but I recognize that >> version numbering is basically arbitrary. >> > -- >> > Jeff Davis >> > BC Libraries Cooperative >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org >> > To unsubscribe send an email to >> evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org >> > > > -- > > Jason Stephenson (he/him) > ILS Manager, C/W MARS, Inc. > > ------------------------------ > > [image: icon] jstephen...@cwmars.org | [image: icon]www.cwmars.org > > [image: icon] 508-755-3323 x 418 > _______________________________________________ > Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org > To unsubscribe send an email to evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org > -- Galen Charlton Implementation and IT Manager Equinox Open Library Initiative g...@equinoxoli.org https://www.equinoxOLI.org phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) direct: 770-709-5581 <http://evergreen-ils.org>
_______________________________________________ Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org To unsubscribe send an email to evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org
