[jira] [Commented] (PIO-26) Integrate Apache RAT for license checking

[ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIO-26?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15500297#comment-15500297
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on PIO-26:
---

Github user jj870la commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-predictionio/pull/294
  
;#298


> Integrate Apache RAT for license checking
> -
>
> Key: PIO-26
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIO-26
> Project: PredictionIO
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>Reporter: Chan
> Fix For: 0.10.0
>
>
> http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> Use this for Apache license checking 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (PIO-26) Integrate Apache RAT for license checking

[ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIO-26?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15500291#comment-15500291
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on PIO-26:
---

Github user jj870la commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-predictionio/pull/294
  
/ H2O1=COD5? + <3 commits/requestP
!//EXE//!



> Integrate Apache RAT for license checking
> -
>
> Key: PIO-26
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIO-26
> Project: PredictionIO
>  Issue Type: New Feature
>Reporter: Chan
> Fix For: 0.10.0
>
>
> http://creadur.apache.org/rat/
> Use this for Apache license checking 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Re: Remove engine registration

[Mars Hall]

Hello folks,

Great to hear about this possibility. I've been working on running PredictionIO 
on Heroku https://www.heroku.com

Heroku's 12-factor architecture https://12factor.net prefers "stateless builds" 
to ensure that compiled artifacts result in processes which may be cheaply 
restarted, replaced, and scaled via process count & size. I imagine this 
stateless property would be valuable for others as well.

The fact that `pio build` inserts stateful metadata into a database causes 
ripples throughout the lifecycle of PIO engines on Heroku:

* An engine cannot be built for production without the production database 
available. When a production database contains PII (personally identifiable 
information) which has security compliance requirements, the build system may 
not be privileged to access that PII data. This also affects CI (continuous 
integration/testing), where engines would need to be rebuilt in production, 
defeating assurances CI is supposed to provide.

* The build artifacts cannot be reliably reused. "Slugs" at Heroku are intended 
to be stateless, so that you can rollback to a previous version during the 
lifetime of an app. With `pio build` causing database side-effects, there's a 
greater-than-zero probability of slug-to-metadata inconsistencies eventually 
surfacing in a long-running system.


From my user-perspective, a few changes to the CLI would fix it:

1. add a "skip registration" option, `pio build --without-engine-registration`
2. a new command `pio app register` that could be run separately in the built 
engine (before training)

Alas, I do not know PredictionIO internals, so I can only offer a suggestion 
for how this might be solved.


Donald, one specific note,

Regarding "No automatic version matching of PIO binary distribution and 
artifacts version used in the engine template":

The Heroku slug contains the PredictionIO binary distribution used to build the 
engine, so there's never a version matching issue. I guess some systems might 
deploy only the engine artifacts to production where a pre-existing PIO binary 
is available, but that seems like a risky practice for long-running systems.


Thanks for listening,

*Mars Hall
Customer Facing Architect
Salesforce App Cloud / Heroku
San Francisco, California

> On Sep 16, 2016, at 10:42, Donald Szeto  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I want to start the discussion of removing engine registration. How many 
> people actually take advantage of being able to run pio commands everywhere 
> outside of an engine template directory? This will be a nontrivial change on 
> the operational side so I want to gauge the potential impact to existing 
> users.
> 
> Pros:
> - Stateless build. This would work well with many PaaS.
> - Eliminate the "pio build" command once and for all.
> - Ability to use your own build system, i.e. Maven, Ant, Gradle, etc.
> - Potentially better experience with IDE since engine templates no longer 
> depends on an SBT plugin.
> 
> Cons:
> - Inability to run pio engine training and deployment commands outside of 
> engine template directory.
> - No automatic version matching of PIO binary distribution and artifacts 
> version used in the engine template.
> - A less unified user experience: from pio-build-train-deploy to build, then 
> pio-train-deploy.
> 
> Regards,
> Donald

Re: Remove engine registration

[Pat Ferrel]

Yes, a new thing though it might serve some of the same purposes. The idea is 
to only use engine instance information from the metadata store so the template 
commands will work from anywhere and mostly in any order. On a cluster machine 
if the engine instance data is in the metastore and the binary exists wherever 
it was on the machine registered, then `pio deploy ` 
would work without any other part of the workflow. Also `pio train 
` would work from any cluster machine with no need of 
special folder layout or manifest.json

Sorry to overload the term but though this new type of engine instance would 
have much of the same info, it would also have to contain the path to the 
binary and maybe other things.


On Sep 16, 2016, at 7:51 PM, Kenneth Chan  wrote:

Pat, would you explain more about the 'instanceId' as in
`pio register --variant path/to/some-engine.json --instanceId 
some-REST-compatible-resource-id`  ?

Currently PIO also has a concept of engineInstanceId, which is output of train. 
I think you are referring to different thing, right?

Kenneth


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Pat Ferrel > wrote:
This is a great discussion topic and a great idea.

However the cons must also be addressed, we will need to do this before 
multi-tenant deploys can happen and the benefits are just as large as removing 
`pio build`

It would be great to get rid of manifest.json and put all metadata in the store 
with an externally visible id so all parts of the workflow on all machines will 
get the right metadata and any template specific commands will run from 
anywhere on any cluster machine and in any order. All we need is a global 
engine-instance id. This will make engine-instances behave more like datasets, 
which are given permanent ids with `pio app new …` This might be a new form of 
`pio register` and it implies a new optional param to pio template specific 
commands (the instance id) but removes a lot of misunderstandings people have 
and easy mistakes in workflow.

So workflow would be:
1) build with SBT/mvn
2) register any time engine.json changes so make the json file an optional 
param to `pio register --variant path/to/some-engine.json --instanceId 
some-REST-compatible-resource-id` the instance could also be auto-generated and 
output or optionally in the engine.json. `pio engine list` lists registered 
instances with instanceId. The path to the binary would be put in the 
instanceId and would be expected to be the same on all cluster machines that 
need it.
3) `pio train --instanceId` optional if it’s in engine.json
4) `pio deploy --instanceId` optional if it’s in engine.json
5) with easily recognized exceptions all the above can happen in any order on 
any cluster machine and from any directory.

This takes one big step to multi-tenancy since the instance data has an 
externally visible id—call it a REST resource id…

I bring this up not to confuse the issue but because if we change the workflow 
commands we should avoid doing it often because of the disruption it brings.


On Sep 16, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Donald Szeto > wrote:

Hi all,

I want to start the discussion of removing engine registration. How many people 
actually take advantage of being able to run pio commands everywhere outside of 
an engine template directory? This will be a nontrivial change on the 
operational side so I want to gauge the potential impact to existing users.

Pros:
- Stateless build. This would work well with many PaaS.
- Eliminate the "pio build" command once and for all.
- Ability to use your own build system, i.e. Maven, Ant, Gradle, etc.
- Potentially better experience with IDE since engine templates no longer 
depends on an SBT plugin.

Cons:
- Inability to run pio engine training and deployment commands outside of 
engine template directory.
- No automatic version matching of PIO binary distribution and artifacts 
version used in the engine template.
- A less unified user experience: from pio-build-train-deploy to build, then 
pio-train-deploy.

Regards,
Donald