On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:13:24PM +0200, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > On 11/30/2011 11:41 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:54:44PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote: > >>* Adam Litke (a...@us.ibm.com) wrote: > >>>On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:39:08AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote: > >>>>* Adam Litke (a...@us.ibm.com) wrote: > >>>>>https://github.com/aglitke/vdsm-rest/ > >>>>> > >>>>>Today I am releasing a proof of concept implementation of a REST API for > >>>>>vdsm. > >>>>>You can find the code on github. My goal is to eventually replace the > >>>>>current > >>>>>xmlrpc interface with a REST API. Once completed, ovirt-engine could > >>>>>switch to > >>>>>this new API. The major advantages to making this change are: 1) VDSM > >>>>>will gain > >>>>>a structured API that conceptually, structurally, and functionally > >>>>>aligns with > >>>>>the ovirt-engine REST API, 2) this new API can be made public, thus > >>>>>providing an > >>>>>entry point for direct virtualization management@the node level. > >>>>Adam, this looks like a nice PoC. I didn't see how API versioning is > >>>>handled. Any VDSM developers willing to review this work? > >>>Thanks for taking a look. I am not handling versioning yet. I think we > >>>can add > >>>a version field to the root API object. As for compatibility, we'll just > >>>have > >>>to decide on an API backwards-compat support policy. Would this be enough > >>>to > >>>handle versioning issues? We shouldn't need anything like capabilities > >>>because > >>>the API is discoverable. > >>Right, that seems sensible. > >> > >>Did you find cases where RPC to REST resource mapping was difficult? > >> > >>I could see something like migrate() plus migrateStatus() and > >>migrateCancel() needing to add some kind of operational state that to the > >>resource. And something like monitorCommand() which has both a possible > >>side-effect and some freefrom response... > >> > >>>><snip> > >>>>>ovirt-engine wants to subscribe to asynchronous events. REST APIs do not > >>>>>typically support async events and instead rely on polling of resources. > >>>>> I am > >>>>>investigating what options are available for supporting async events via > >>>>>REST. > >>>>I think typical is either polling or long polling. If it's a single > >>>>resource, then perhaps long polling would be fine (won't be a large > >>>>number of connections tied up if it's only a single resource). > >>>Not sure if this is what you are referring to, but I was thinking we could > >>>do a > >>>batch-polling mechanism where an API user passes in a list of task UUIDs > >>>and/or > >>>event URIs. The server would respond with the status of these resources > >>>in one > >>>response. I have some ideas on how we could wire up asynchronous events > >>>on the > >>>server side to reduce the amount of actual work that such a batch-polling > >>>operation would require. > >>Oh, I just meant this: > >> > >>Polling (GET /event + 404 loop) > >>Long polling (GET + block ... can chew up a thread connection) > >Yes, this is what I was inclined to suggest too. Polling is such a > >misleading description :-P > > > >This isn't really an either/or choice - you could trivially just > >pass a query parmeter to /event to indicate whether you want an > >immediate 404 reply, or to wait for 'N' seconds, or infinity > >There's no reason it needs to consume a thread in VDSM permanently, > >though I don't think that's a huge problem even if it does keep a > >permanent thread open, since Linux threading is so lightweight. > > > >In more detail, I'd was going to suggest > > > > 1. One or more location for registering/unregistering interest > > in events in various different resources/objects > > > > /some/path/register-event?foo=bar > > /some/path/unregister-event?foo=bar > > /other/path/register-event?eek=oooh > > > > 2. A common location for receiving all events > > > > /event?wait=NNNN (NNN = 0 => immediate 404, > > NNN>= 0 => wait time, > > omitted parameter => inifinity) > > > > 3. Added bonus points to either > > > > - Support persistent keepalive connections so that > > you can just send further GET /event requests over > > the same socket FD after receving each reply > > > > - Used HTTP chunked encoding. Each event is sent back > > as a separate chunk. The server can just carry > > on sending you chunks forever as new events occur, > > so the HTTP reply is in effect infinitely long. > - the server would respond with the event status in a > 100-continue response, thus 'lingering' the response for as much as > the client needs. Less overhead than chunks, just as problematic > with crappy proxies that do not properly support either chunking or > 100-continue properly (but should not be an issue if it's within > SSL).
In this hostile world, I think it is reasonable for us to consider HTTPS to be the only serious option for production deployments, and discount plain HTTP for anything except adhoc dev/test usage. So I say we don't have to worry abvout broken proxies here. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel