Thank you, Galen! On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 12:06 PM Galen Charlton via Evergreen-dev < evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > Series 3.16 and milestone 3.16-beta are now set up in Launchpad via > renaming 4.0/4.0-beta. > > Regards, > > Galen > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:13 AM Rogan Hamby <rogan.ha...@equinoxoli.org> > wrote: > >> I concur that something labeled 4.0 should be very end user visible. Part >> of the value of a major version release is that it can be promoted as a >> project milestone in its maturity and it takes a lot of wind out of the >> sails to say "you can't see any of it but trust us, it's cool." >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:00 AM Galen Charlton via Evergreen-dev < >> evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> > > -- > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Evergreen-dev mailing list -- evergreen-dev@list.evergreen-ils.org To unsubscribe send an email to evergreen-dev-le...@list.evergreen-ils.org
