----- Original Message ----- > -1 for git submodules. I am really not keen on those; worked with them > while working on Chromium and it was, to be frank, a mess to handle, update > and maintain. >
I've also found submodules disappointing, and been watching on the sidelines as the boost community discovers what a pita they are. A newer alternative is git subtree. Full disclosure: I haven't actually worked with subtree, but it looks like a better system than submodules: http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/alternatives-to-git-submodule-git-subtree/ > I am rooting for separate repos. Maybe worth a non-binding vote? > > Niklas > > > On 17 July 2014 11:45, Tim St Clair <tstcl...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Inline - > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > *From: *"Vladimir Vivien" <vladimir.viv...@gmail.com> > > *To: *user@mesos.apache.org > > *Sent: *Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:34:37 PM > > > > *Subject: *Re: Mesos language bindings in the wild > > > > Hi all, > > Apologies for being super late to this thread. To answer Niklas point at > > the start of the thread: Yes, I am thrilled to contribute in anyway I can. > > The project is moving forward and making progress (slower than I want, but > > progress regardless). > > > > Going Native > > Implementing a native client for Mesos is an arduous process right now > > since there's little doc to guide developers. Once I went through C++ code > > and a few emails, it became easy (even easier than I thought). If the push > > is for more native client, at some point we will need basic internals to be > > documented. > > > > Mesos-Certified > > Maybe a Mesos test suite can be used to certify native clients. There are > > tons of unit tests in the code that already validate the source code. > > Maybe some of those test logic can be pulled out / copied into a small > > stand-alone mesos test server that clients can communicate with to run a > > test suite (just an idea). This along with some documentation would help > > with quality of native clients. > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > In or Out of Core > > Having native clients source hosted in core would be great since all code > > would be in one location. Go code can certainly co-exist a subproject in > > Mesos. Go's build workflow can be driven by Make. Go's dependency > > management can work with repo subdirectories (at least according to 'go > > help importpath', I haven't tested that myself). But, as Tom pointed out, > > the thing that raises a flag for me is project velocity. If author wants > > to move faster or slower than Mesos release cycles, there's no way to do so > > once the code is part of core. > > > > Anyway, I have gone on long enough. Looking for ward to feedback. > > > > > > I usually don't tread here, but perhaps a git-submodule works in this > > narrow case. > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Tim St Clair <tstcl...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Tom - > >> > >> I understand the desire to create bindings outside the core. The point I > >> was trying to make earlier around version semantics and testing was to > >> 'Hedge' the risk. It basically creates a contract between core & > >> framework+bindings writers. > >> > >> No one ever intends to break compatibility, but it happens all the time > >> and usually in some very subtle ways at first. A great example of this is > >> a patch I recently submitted to Mesos where the cgroup code was writing an > >> extra <<endln out. Earlier versions of the kernel had no issue with this, > >> but recent modifications would cause the cgroup code to fail. Very > >> subtle, > >> and boom-goes-the-dynamite. > >> > >> Below was an email I sent a while back, that outlines a possible > >> hedge/contract. Please let me know what you think. > >> > >> -------------------------- > >> > > >> > Greetings! > >> > > >> > I've conversed with folks about the idea of having a more formalized > >> release > >> > and branching strategy, such that others who are downstream can rely on > >> > certain version semantics when planning upgrades, etc. This becomes > >> doubly > >> > important as we start to trend towards a 1.0 release, and folks will > >> depend > >> > heavily on it for their core infrastructure, and APIs (Frameworks, and > >> EC). > >> > > >> > Therefore, I wanted to propose a more formalized branching and release > >> > strategy, and see what others think. I slightly modified this pattern > >> from > >> > the Condor & Kernel projects, which have well established processes. > >> > > >> > ------------------------------ > >> > Basic Idea: > >> > > >> > 1.) Create 2 Main Branches (Stable/Devel-Master based) > >> > 2.) Devel releases are cadence/time based and lightly tested. > >> > 3.) Stable series only accepts bug fixes. Merge path for all bug fixes > >> > deemed worthy, are through the stable series up to master. > >> > 4.) @ some point devel goes through a *hardning phase* and becomes the > >> new > >> > stable. > >> > > >> > ------------------------------ > >> > Version Semantics: > >> > > >> > Major.Minor.Revision-PatchBuild > >> > > >> > Major: > >> > - Compatibility breakage (usually protocol or api shift), or enough > >> minors > >> > to justify change. > >> > >> > >> If there is a major version change it should be taken with care and > >> notify downstream usually through the > >> > >> mailing lists. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Minor: > >> > - Devel (Odd) - 1.1.x > >> > - Stable (Even) - 1.0.x > >> > > >> > Revision: > >> > - Devel - Cadence # Some set of feature enhancements > >> > - Stable - Bug and security fixes only (Higher bar of entry) > >> > > >> > PatchBuild: > >> > - Upstream - Whoops our bad, we found a bug or two > >> > - Downstream - Back-port build variant. > >> > > >> > ------------------------------ > >> > Series/Branches: > >> > > >> > Development Series - (Odd Minor #'s): 1.1.x > >> > The development series branches/tags are cadence based, and come off of > >> > master. All new features are added to master. All bug fixes should be > >> > merged through the stable series into the master. It should be ok to > >> > introduce destabilizing features from time to time, provided its agreed > >> upon > >> > by a Sheppard. > >> > > >> > Stable Series - (Even Minor #'s): 1.0.x > >> > Stable series should *only contain* bug fixes. This way, downstream > >> folks > >> > have a common understanding that behavior should be maintained. Should > >> > downstream folks wish to back-port features, they can do that at their > >> own > >> > risk. Every release of the stable series has some measure of quality > > >> then > >> > a +1. E.g. running some clusters for a period of time (X), > >> > > >> > >> > >> In this model, stable series should be "stable" for writers against the > >> API(s). > >> > >> > >> > Transition from Devel-> Stable: > >> > After some point, the development series needs to go through a hardening > >> > phase. This could include static analysis + running on some production > >> > cluster for a period of time. Folks typically plan the transition > >> around a > >> > conference series in order to announce the cool new features. > >> > >> > >> + You could test the bindings during this phase ^ but for stable series > >> they should just work. > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Tim > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> *From: *"Tom Arnfeld" <t...@duedil.com> > >> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org > >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:50:47 AM > >> > >> *Subject: *Re: Mesos language bindings in the wild > >> > >> Hey Tim, > >> > >> I can see your point, and am finding it hard to think of any compelling > >> arguments against the issue of fragmentation, but I do have a few > >> thoughts.p > >> > >> That said, I would strongly suggest taking ease-of-use and language > >> specific code structures into consideration. A huge monolithic build > >> system > >> might not be a good thing either, if I'm not mistaken that's why twitter > >> built Pants. > >> > >> Spark is actually a great example here, it's going to be a huge pain to > >> publish PySpark to PYPI because of the way they structure the code, unless > >> you force users to use a bleeding edge version of setuptools to be able to > >> install the software. In the case of PySpark (and other libraries that > >> require compiled dependencies, see Hadoofus on github which I collaborated > >> on this exact issue). It's a nightmare. Projects that work well with > >> python setuptools are projects that are just python, from my experience. > >> > >> That said, it's only a nightmare when you *have* precompiled dependencies > >> that need to be part of the build process. This is no longer the case with > >> the new mesos bindings, so why make it so hard? > >> > >> Take Go as another example (this is similar to installing pip > >> dependencies from github too) - a user can simply plug in the path to a > >> repository and away they go. It's easy, and will rapidly speed up adoption > >> IMO. This isn't something that can easily be done if it's not in it's own > >> repo, and the Mesos repository is pretty huge now. > >> > >> My opinion is largely from a users perspective. However, I would ask the > >> question - how often does the framework API change in such a way that it > >> breaks compatibility? Will there be a need to orchestrate releases among > >> 20 > >> language bindings to get a release of the core out, how often? Would it be > >> easier for developers to implement a change and also make that change > >> across all languages at the same time, is that even really going to > >> happen? > >> > >> It's also worth considering release cycles, with all bindings being built > >> into the core, it requires them all the be release together (or it's a git > >> tag pain). Given that lots of the bindings are going to be (and already > >> are) community driven, and only a few people are in charge of the Mesos > >> release cycle (taking at least a few weeks for a release to come out) the > >> pace for each binding has to be the same, and there's no autonomy. > >> > >> My personal feeling is that develop user experience isn't thought about > >> enough is these sorts of situations, and not having a good experience > >> either to use or work on the code is a pain and can slow down adoption. > >> > >> Would be interested to hear what you all think, or if you completely > >> disagree :-) > >> > >> Tom. > >> > >> On Tuesday, 15 July 2014, Tim St Clair <tstcl...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >>> So... your response basically capitulates to the fragmentation argument: > >>> > >>> > >>> "Yes we will have binding strewn about of questionable quality that may, > >>> or may not, work with core." > >>> > >>> The point that I'm trying to make is, fragmentation *is not* a good > >>> thing. > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------- > >>> Case in point - The Hadoop Ecosystem (fragmentation) > >>> > >>> In order for anyone to make a salient stack of any measure, vendors have > >>> to knit together components into a stack which can then be consumed by > >>> the > >>> masses. > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------- > >>> Counterpoint - Spark (curating) libraries > >>> > >>> Spark bundles 1st order interface libraries as part of a curated core. > >>> You are guaranteed that the core will inter-operate, and PySpark is > >>> given > >>> 1st class standing. > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> This is a bad idea, unless there is a plan to hedge the risk. > >>> > >>> -Tim > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> > From: "yifan" <myan...@msn.com <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;>> > >>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;> > >>> > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 7:10:34 PM > >>> > Subject: Re: Mesos language bindings in the wild > >>> > > >>> > Hi Tim, > >>> > > >>> > I found that in zookeeper, they also separate the bindings from the > >>> core. > >>> > > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ZKClientBindings > >>> > > >>> > So, IMHO, I think it should be the maintainer's responsibility to keep > >>> > the binding in healthy state, with clear documentation of which version > >>> > of the mesos core they supports. > >>> > > >>> > Yifan > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 07/14/2014 11:30 AM, Tim St Clair wrote: > >>> > > So I fear the fragmentation that can occur if we provide native > >>> bindings > >>> > > outside of the core, unless there is some mechanism for testing, & a > >>> well > >>> > > established versioning scheme. > >>> > > > >>> > > IMHO, priority inversion on 'versioning' should come before bindings > >>> to > >>> > > ensure we adhere to policy. > >>> > > > >>> > > Thoughts? > >>> > > > >>> > > -Tim > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >>> > >> From: "Tom Arnfeld" <t...@duedil.com <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;>> > >>> > >> To: d...@mesos.apache.org <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;> > >>> > >> Cc: user@mesos.apache.org <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;> > >>> > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:22:59 AM > >>> > >> Subject: Re: Mesos language bindings in the wild > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Very exciting. I'd vote +1 for splitting them out. Especially if you > >>> > >> look at the common way of using Go imports, just stick the project > >>> on > >>> > >> GitHub and import it directly using "github.com/mesos/mesos-go" or > >>> > >> similar. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> I guess one argument is that you have more fragmentation of the code > >>> > >> (e.g every library has it's own copy of the protos) but I'm not sure > >>> > >> that's a bad thing. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Just my two cents. Looking forward to this! > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> On 11 Jul 2014, at 16:59, Thomas Rampelberg <tho...@saunter.org > >>> <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I've started preparing the python bindings to hopefully take this > >>> > >>> route ( https://reviews.apache.org/r/23224/ would love some > >>> reviews! > >>> > >>> ). In fact, there is already a native python implementation of both > >>> > >>> libprocess and the framework apis! ( > >>> https://github.com/wickman/pesos/ > >>> > >>> , https://github.com/wickman/compactor ). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> What are the benefits of bindings being part of the project source > >>> > >>> itself instead of having blessed implementations like mesos-python > >>> > >>> where the source and versioning becomes separate? I've been running > >>> > >>> into difficulties making automake and python's build tools play > >>> nicely > >>> > >>> together. It seems like there'd be more flexibility in general by > >>> > >>> splitting them out. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Niklas Nielsen < > >>> nik...@mesosphere.io <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;>> > >>> > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I just wanted to clarify - native, meaning _no_ dependency to > >>> libmesos > >>> > >>>> and > >>> > >>>> native to its language (only Go, only Python and so on) i.e. use > >>> the > >>> > >>>> low-level API. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Sorry for the confusion, > >>> > >>>> Niklas > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>>> On 10 July 2014 15:55, Dominic Hamon <dha...@twopensource.com > >>> <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> In my dream world, we wouldn't need any native bindings. I can > >>> imagine > >>> > >>>>> having example frameworks or starter frameworks that use the > >>> low-level > >>> > >>>>> API > >>> > >>>>> (the wire protocol with protocol buffers for message passing), > >>> but > >>> > >>>>> nothing > >>> > >>>>> like we have that needs C or JNI, etc. > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Niklas Nielsen < > >>> nik...@mesosphere.io <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;>> > >>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> I wanted to start a discussion around the language bindings in > >>> the > >>> > >>>>>> wild > >>> > >>>>>> (Go, Haskell, native Python, Go, Java and so on) and possibly > >>> get to a > >>> > >>>>>> strategy where we start bringing those into Mesos proper. As > >>> most > >>> > >>>>>> things > >>> > >>>>>> points towards, it will probably make sense to focus on the > >>> native > >>> > >>>>>> "bindings" leveraging the low-level API. To name one candidate > >>> to > >>> > >>>>>> start > >>> > >>>>>> with, we are especially interested in getting Go native support > >>> in > >>> > >>>>>> Mesos > >>> > >>>>>> proper (and in a solid state). So Vladimir, we'd be super > >>> thrilled to > >>> > >>>>> start > >>> > >>>>>> collaborating with you on your current work. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> We are interested to hear what thoughts you all might have on > >>> this. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>> > >>>>>> Niklas > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Gu Yifan > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Cheers, > >>> Timothy St. Clair > >>> Red Hat Inc. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> Timothy St. Clair > >> Red Hat Inc. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Vladimir Vivien > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Timothy St. Clair > > Red Hat Inc. > > >
