Did anyone know this existed https://github.com/douban/dpark/tree/master/dpark/pymesos ? Just came across that while googling...
On 23 July 2014 18:28, Erik Erlandson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ----- 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Inline - > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > *From: *"Vladimir Vivien" <[email protected]> > > > *To: *[email protected] > > > *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 <[email protected]> > > > 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" <[email protected]> > > >> *To: *[email protected] > > >> *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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected] <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;>> > > >>> > To: [email protected] <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" <[email protected] <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED > ;>> > > >>> > >> To: [email protected] <http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED;> > > >>> > >> Cc: [email protected] <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 < > [email protected] > > >>> <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 < > > >>> [email protected] <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 < > [email protected] > > >>> <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 < > > >>> [email protected] <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. > > > > > >
