Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-sdk-php] Transport Clients, Service Clients, and state
Those are some good questions and I pondered them last night even before I read your email. Right now, if no transport layer is passed in a default one is used for them. The don't make me think implementation is already there. If you want to use something other than the default one than you need to inject one. I even had an idea how to tweak our use of the default one to improve performance in the network layer. More on that after some testing. The idea that a class either holds state or performs functionality is not agreed to. Some people like that. For example, Rich Hickey talked about it at Strangeloop in his talk Simple Made Easy (http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy). Alternately, there are definitions of OOP floating around like, Rather than structure programs as code and data, an object-oriented system integrates the two using the concept of an “object”. An object is an abstract data type that has state (data) and behavior (code). This is from http://spf13.com/post/is-go-object-oriented which talks about the Go programming language. While this has some debate to it, when I read about object oriented programming on Wikipedia it starts out saying, Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm that represents the concept of objects that have data fields (attributes that describe the object) and associated procedures known as methods. A transport layer in this case does have state and functionality. The state is related to it's ability to transport things. Things like a proxy server or timeout. Those are state. The functionality is moving data. There are other transport clients that don't have state about about what they are transporting (like a base URL). For example, in the Go standard library there is an HTTP client (with a lower level transport mechanism) and neither of these layers has state about what they are transporting. The state is around how they transport it. The library as it was brought into Stackforge (before the author of that component had ever seen Go) wrote one that worked this way. It was a singleton but it's design handled transporting this way. I was poking around the popular request library used in node.js/JS (and used by pkgcloud for OpenStack) and it operates in the similar manner to what we're talking about in a transport layer. Sure, you can set default headers. That's useful for setting things like the user agent. Looking at the example use of request and how pkgcloud uses it works similar to how I've described using a transport layer. Transport layers like this are not unheard of. I'm aware of a number of codebases where Guzzle is used as a stateless transport layer. Using curl with connection pooling across platforms in PHP is hard. The API isn't easy to use. Guzzle gives it a good API and makes it easy. Lots of people like that and use it that way. Since the codebases that came to mind were not open source I poked around at open source codebases. I found a lot of projects that use it as a stateless client. I looked at Guzzle 4 which doesn't have much uptake and Guzzle 3. To answer the question, Do we really feel confident building our transport client like nobody else has before?... I feel confident doing it this way and it is like others before. It's just not the hot talked about thing on the conference circuit right now. Hope this helps clarify my thinking. - Matt On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jamie Hannaford jamie.hannaf...@rackspace.com wrote: So what you’re proposing is effectively a stateless transport client that accepts input and then works on it? I didn’t realize you meant this until your previous e-mail - the more I think about your idea, the more I like it. I think it’s great for two reasons: - It really ties in with our idea of a pluggable transport layer. My idea of having transport state doesn’t actually go against this (nor does it break single responsibility/blur separation of concerns like you mention - but that’s another debate!) - but your idea enforces it in a stronger way. - In OOP, many people believe that a class should either hold state or perform functionality - but not both. If we remove state from our client, we’d have a smaller and more coherent scope of responsibility. However, as much as I like the idea, I do have some major reservations which we need to think about: - Nearly all HTTP clients out there hold state - whether it’s base URLs, default headers, whatever. Guzzle does this, ZF2 does this, Symfony does this, Python’s base HTTP client does this. Do we really feel confident building our transport client like nobody else has before? Maybe there are good reasons why they chose to maintain state in their clients for reasons we can’t immediately see now. - Do we really expect our end-users to create, manage and inject the transport clients? You yourself admitted that most of our users will not understand or use dependency injection - so why push a pattern that will
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-sdk-php] Transport Clients, Service Clients, and state
My comments are inline below... On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Jamie Hannaford jamie.hannaf...@rackspace.com wrote: Whether the same one is used for each service or a new one is used for each service doesn't matter. Yes, it does matter IMO - and here are the reasons why: 1. By sharing a global transport object you’re introducing the risk of side effects. A transport object contains state that can be modified by its service object. Somewhere along the line, a Swift service could introduce a state modification that’s completely incompatible with a Nova service. What’s worse is that it will be a nightmare to debug - you’d have to trawl the entire service to see points where it interacts with the transport client. This is why people don’t use singletons - it’s incredibly risky and hard to debug. Object instantiations, on the other hand, are cheap and they offer protection through isolation. There are two things here. First, if the transport client has no state for the service than it doesn't get mixed up on state. A Swift client would never introduce state for swift to the transport client because the transport client has no state for this. It's for transporting. Second, it's not a singleton. You could have the same transport client for all of them, a different transport client for each, or any permutation in between. If the transport client contains no state to a service than it doesn't matter. To quote wikipedia, the singleton pattern is a design pattern that restricts the instantiation of a class to one object. A singleton is an intended restriction. This isn't a restriction. It's about options. If the service client is responsible for state for the service and the transport client is responsible for transporting information and the state of transport (e.g., is the info going through a proxy) than you don't run into issues where the transport client knows state of a service because that's the responsibility of the service client not the transport client. 2. Certain services rely on custom transport configurations. Each transport client has a base URL that is used for issuing HTTP requests - every time you execute a request, you’re effectively adding relevant paths for that API operation. A Swift service will have different URL endpoints from a Nova one - so there’s no point sharing. Another example is custom headers. Marconi requests custom headers to be sent, as does Glance. You save these as default headers on the transport client, that are sent for all requests that the service executes. These custom headers are not applicable to any other service except Marconi/Glance. If a transport client know the base URL than it knows state about the service. The separation of concerns is broken. Why does it need to know the URL? Why does it need to know about custom headers? Customizations and state for a service are the responsibility of the service client and not the transport client. Why does a service client and transport client need to both know the state of the service? The responsibility become blurred here. In the use-cases you mentioned, you’d easily handle that. You’d pass in proxy settings through the OpenStack entry point (like you do with your username and password), which would then percolate down into the transport clients as they’re created. These settings would be injected into each transport client. So if you require a different set-up for public clouds - that’s fine - you define different settings and fire up another $openstack object. How things get passed around isn't an issues. I don't think we need to debase how we pass settings around right now. The issue is separation of concerns between the service clients and the transport clients. *-OR-* you could define different transport settings for different services - by passing them into the $openstack-get(‘compute’, [‘custom_settings’ = true]); call. This is great because it gives users the ability to apply custom transport options to certain services. So if I want to interact with a private Compute instance, I’d pass in a custom transport configuration for that service; if I wanted to use a proxy with my Swift service, I can pass details into that service when creating it. You can only do this (provide custom transport settings for 1 service) if each transport client is isolated, i.e. if there’s a 1-to-1 relationship between service and transport client. If you have a global one, you couldn’t introduce custom settings per service because it’d affect ALL others, which is a bad user experience. We're not talking about an application. We're talking about an SDK with a simple entry point for ease and building blocks you can do a lot with. This isn't about a 1-to-1 relationship between a service and transport client OR a global one. It's different than that. They should have different responsibilities. Entirely different. A transport client moves data. It doesn't know
[openstack-dev] [openstack-sdk-php] Transport Clients, Service Clients, and state
We've started to talk about the interactions between transport clients, service clients, and state. I've noticed we're not on the same page so I wanted to start a dialog. Here's my starting point... A Transport Client is about transporting data. It sends and receives data. A Service Client handles the interactions with a service (e.g., swift, nova, keystone). A Service Client uses a Transport Client when it needs to transport data to and from a service. When it comes to state, a Transport Client knows about transporting things. That means it knows things like if there is a proxy and how to work with it. A Service Client knows about a service which includes and state for that service. In the realm of separation of concerns, a Service Client doesn't know about transport state and a Transport Client doesn't know about service state. They are separate. A Service Client doesn't care what Transport Client is used as long as the API (interface) is compliant. A Transport Client doesn't care what code calls it as long as it uses the public API defined by an interface. This is my take. If someone has a different take please share it with the reasoning. - Matt ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-sdk-php] Transport Clients, Service Clients, and state
I completely agree with you regarding separation of concerns. I also agree with your definitions: a transport client is for managing HTTP transactions, a service client contains all the domain logic for an API service (Swift, Nova, etc.). A service knows nothing about HTTP, a transport client knows nothing about Swift. A transport client is injected into the service client, satisfying the type hint. So any transport client implementing our interface is fine. Up to this point I’m in 100% agreement. The area which I think I misunderstood was the creation process of service clients. My take was that you were advocating a shared transport client instance - i.e. a transport client instantiated once, and re-used for every service client. If we did that, there would be global state. My opinion is that we create a new transport client instance for every service client, not re-use existing instances. What’s your take on this? Jamie On June 5, 2014 at 5:17:57 PM, Matthew Farina (m...@mattfarina.commailto:m...@mattfarina.com) wrote: We've started to talk about the interactions between transport clients, service clients, and state. I've noticed we're not on the same page so I wanted to start a dialog. Here's my starting point... A Transport Client is about transporting data. It sends and receives data. A Service Client handles the interactions with a service (e.g., swift, nova, keystone). A Service Client uses a Transport Client when it needs to transport data to and from a service. When it comes to state, a Transport Client knows about transporting things. That means it knows things like if there is a proxy and how to work with it. A Service Client knows about a service which includes and state for that service. In the realm of separation of concerns, a Service Client doesn't know about transport state and a Transport Client doesn't know about service state. They are separate. A Service Client doesn't care what Transport Client is used as long as the API (interface) is compliant. A Transport Client doesn't care what code calls it as long as it uses the public API defined by an interface. This is my take. If someone has a different take please share it with the reasoning. - Matt Jamie Hannaford Software Developer III - CH [experience Fanatical Support] Tel:+41434303908 Mob:+41791009767 [Rackspace] Rackspace International GmbH a company registered in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (company identification number CH-020.4.047.077-1) whose registered office is at Pfingstweidstrasse 60, 8005 Zurich, Switzerland. Rackspace International GmbH privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.co.uk/legal/swiss-privacy-policy - Rackspace Hosting Australia PTY LTD a company registered in the state of Victoria, Australia (company registered number ACN 153 275 524) whose registered office is at Suite 3, Level 7, 210 George Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. Rackspace Hosting Australia PTY LTD privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.com.au/company/legal-privacy-statement.php - Rackspace US, Inc, 5000 Walzem Road, San Antonio, Texas 78218, United States of America Rackspace US, Inc privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.com/information/legal/privacystatement - Rackspace Limited is a company registered in England Wales (company registered number 03897010) whose registered office is at 5 Millington Road, Hyde Park Hayes, Middlesex UB3 4AZ. Rackspace Limited privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.co.uk/legal/privacy-policy - Rackspace Benelux B.V. is a company registered in the Netherlands (company KvK nummer 34276327) whose registered office is at Teleportboulevard 110, 1043 EJ Amsterdam. Rackspace Benelux B.V privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.nl/juridisch/privacy-policy - Rackspace Asia Limited is a company registered in Hong Kong (Company no: 1211294) whose registered office is at 9/F, Cambridge House, Taikoo Place, 979 King's Road, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong. Rackspace Asia Limited privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.com.hk/company/legal-privacy-statement.php - This e-mail message (including any attachments or embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail at ab...@rackspace.com and delete the original message. Your cooperation is appreciated. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-sdk-php] Transport Clients, Service Clients, and state
My opinion is that we create a *new* transport client instance for every service client, not re-use existing instances. What’s your take on this? I'm not in agreement and here is why (with a use case). A transport client is concerned with transporting only. Whether the same one is used for each service or a new one is used for each service doesn't matter. An example of using two transport clients would be a case where an application communicates with two different OpenStack clouds. One is a public cloud and the application communicates through a proxy. A transport client would know how to talk through the proxy to the public cloud. A second OpenStack cloud is a private cloud that is on the same company network. A second transport client would know how to talk to that without communicating through the proxy. The service clients communicating with each cloud would use the appropriate transport client. The mapping of transport client to service client doesn't need to be 1:1 if they operate in different spaces. Only having instances of a transport client as needed decreases the use of resources or the time needed to manage those. If a transport client is only concerned with transporting than what is the need to have more than one per case to transport? - Matt On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Jamie Hannaford jamie.hannaf...@rackspace.com wrote: I completely agree with you regarding separation of concerns. I also agree with your definitions: a transport client is for managing HTTP transactions, a service client contains all the domain logic for an API service (Swift, Nova, etc.). A service knows nothing about HTTP, a transport client knows nothing about Swift. A transport client is injected into the service client, satisfying the type hint. So any transport client implementing our interface is fine. Up to this point I’m in 100% agreement. The area which I think I misunderstood was the *creation process* of service clients. My take was that you were advocating a shared transport client instance - i.e. a transport client instantiated once, and re-used for every service client. If we did that, there would be global state. My opinion is that we create a *new* transport client instance for every service client, not re-use existing instances. What’s your take on this? Jamie On June 5, 2014 at 5:17:57 PM, Matthew Farina (m...@mattfarina.com) wrote: We've started to talk about the interactions between transport clients, service clients, and state. I've noticed we're not on the same page so I wanted to start a dialog. Here's my starting point... A Transport Client is about transporting data. It sends and receives data. A Service Client handles the interactions with a service (e.g., swift, nova, keystone). A Service Client uses a Transport Client when it needs to transport data to and from a service. When it comes to state, a Transport Client knows about transporting things. That means it knows things like if there is a proxy and how to work with it. A Service Client knows about a service which includes and state for that service. In the realm of separation of concerns, a Service Client doesn't know about transport state and a Transport Client doesn't know about service state. They are separate. A Service Client doesn't care what Transport Client is used as long as the API (interface) is compliant. A Transport Client doesn't care what code calls it as long as it uses the public API defined by an interface. This is my take. If someone has a different take please share it with the reasoning. - Matt Jamie Hannaford Software Developer III - CH [image: experience Fanatical Support] [image: LINE] Tel: +41434303908Mob: +41791009767 [image: Rackspace] Rackspace International GmbH a company registered in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (company identification number CH-020.4.047.077-1) whose registered office is at Pfingstweidstrasse 60, 8005 Zurich, Switzerland. Rackspace International GmbH privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.co.uk/legal/swiss-privacy-policy - Rackspace Hosting Australia PTY LTD a company registered in the state of Victoria, Australia (company registered number ACN 153 275 524) whose registered office is at Suite 3, Level 7, 210 George Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. Rackspace Hosting Australia PTY LTD privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.com.au/company/legal-privacy-statement.php - Rackspace US, Inc, 5000 Walzem Road, San Antonio, Texas 78218, United States of America Rackspace US, Inc privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.com/information/legal/privacystatement - Rackspace Limited is a company registered in England Wales (company registered number 03897010) whose registered office is at 5 Millington Road, Hyde Park Hayes, Middlesex UB3 4AZ. Rackspace Limited privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.co.uk/legal/privacy-policy - Rackspace Benelux B.V. is a company
