You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to distributedlog-dev@bookkeeper.apache.org by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> on 2017/09/27 09:12:32 UTC
Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Hi,
we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
BookKeeper,
Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
classes from DistributeLog.
All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I
agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially now
that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a vision/roadmap
Cheers
Enrico
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 29, 2017 3:54 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-09-29 5:46 GMT+02:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>:
> How about make class OrderedSafeExecutor extends OrderedScheduler. then
all
> the old reference in bk will not need change, and in future dl will also
> survive?
>
Jia
I think this is a good idea
In the scope of the patch for BP-15 I would like to deliver the patch as
soon as we are ok and then leave further improvements to new issues
Sgtm
The patch is huge and this change is not needed, we will need to evaluate
carefully the two classes and the semantics, if you are proposing this I am
sure you already did this check
Does this sound good to you Jia ?
Thank you
Enrico
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2017-09-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
> > > BookKeeper,
> > >
> > > Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be
used
> > by
> > > both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap
for
> > > porting them all at once.
> > >
> >
> >
> > OK it makes sense to me
> >
> > For instance in the work of BP-15 I have copied all the classes from
> > distributed log concurrent package because they included FutureUtils and
> > the test cases were "mixed" with a new OrderedScheduler
> > In this case should we port only the FutureUtils class ?
> > Charan in fact commented in the PR that the new OrderedScheduler is like
> a
> > duplicate of SafeOrderedExecutor
> >
> > see
> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/510/files#diff-
> > 7b4bf6e4bd61d819b3d7cdafea256073
> >
> > What do you think about this case ?
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
> > > classes from DistributeLog.
> > > All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and
I
> > > agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code,
especially
> > now
> > > that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
> > >
> > > So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a
> > > vision/roadmap
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 29, 2017 3:54 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-09-29 5:46 GMT+02:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>:
> How about make class OrderedSafeExecutor extends OrderedScheduler. then
all
> the old reference in bk will not need change, and in future dl will also
> survive?
>
Jia
I think this is a good idea
In the scope of the patch for BP-15 I would like to deliver the patch as
soon as we are ok and then leave further improvements to new issues
Sgtm
The patch is huge and this change is not needed, we will need to evaluate
carefully the two classes and the semantics, if you are proposing this I am
sure you already did this check
Does this sound good to you Jia ?
Thank you
Enrico
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2017-09-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
> > > BookKeeper,
> > >
> > > Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be
used
> > by
> > > both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap
for
> > > porting them all at once.
> > >
> >
> >
> > OK it makes sense to me
> >
> > For instance in the work of BP-15 I have copied all the classes from
> > distributed log concurrent package because they included FutureUtils and
> > the test cases were "mixed" with a new OrderedScheduler
> > In this case should we port only the FutureUtils class ?
> > Charan in fact commented in the PR that the new OrderedScheduler is like
> a
> > duplicate of SafeOrderedExecutor
> >
> > see
> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/510/files#diff-
> > 7b4bf6e4bd61d819b3d7cdafea256073
> >
> > What do you think about this case ?
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
> > > classes from DistributeLog.
> > > All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and
I
> > > agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code,
especially
> > now
> > > that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
> > >
> > > So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a
> > > vision/roadmap
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.
2017-09-29 5:46 GMT+02:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>:
> How about make class OrderedSafeExecutor extends OrderedScheduler. then all
> the old reference in bk will not need change, and in future dl will also
> survive?
>
Jia
I think this is a good idea
In the scope of the patch for BP-15 I would like to deliver the patch as
soon as we are ok and then leave further improvements to new issues
The patch is huge and this change is not needed, we will need to evaluate
carefully the two classes and the semantics, if you are proposing this I am
sure you already did this check
Does this sound good to you Jia ?
Thank you
Enrico
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2017-09-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
> > > BookKeeper,
> > >
> > > Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be used
> > by
> > > both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap for
> > > porting them all at once.
> > >
> >
> >
> > OK it makes sense to me
> >
> > For instance in the work of BP-15 I have copied all the classes from
> > distributed log concurrent package because they included FutureUtils and
> > the test cases were "mixed" with a new OrderedScheduler
> > In this case should we port only the FutureUtils class ?
> > Charan in fact commented in the PR that the new OrderedScheduler is like
> a
> > duplicate of SafeOrderedExecutor
> >
> > see
> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/510/files#diff-
> > 7b4bf6e4bd61d819b3d7cdafea256073
> >
> > What do you think about this case ?
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
> > > classes from DistributeLog.
> > > All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I
> > > agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially
> > now
> > > that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
> > >
> > > So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a
> > > vision/roadmap
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.
2017-09-29 5:46 GMT+02:00 Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>:
> How about make class OrderedSafeExecutor extends OrderedScheduler. then all
> the old reference in bk will not need change, and in future dl will also
> survive?
>
Jia
I think this is a good idea
In the scope of the patch for BP-15 I would like to deliver the patch as
soon as we are ok and then leave further improvements to new issues
The patch is huge and this change is not needed, we will need to evaluate
carefully the two classes and the semantics, if you are proposing this I am
sure you already did this check
Does this sound good to you Jia ?
Thank you
Enrico
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2017-09-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
> > > BookKeeper,
> > >
> > > Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be used
> > by
> > > both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap for
> > > porting them all at once.
> > >
> >
> >
> > OK it makes sense to me
> >
> > For instance in the work of BP-15 I have copied all the classes from
> > distributed log concurrent package because they included FutureUtils and
> > the test cases were "mixed" with a new OrderedScheduler
> > In this case should we port only the FutureUtils class ?
> > Charan in fact commented in the PR that the new OrderedScheduler is like
> a
> > duplicate of SafeOrderedExecutor
> >
> > see
> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/510/files#diff-
> > 7b4bf6e4bd61d819b3d7cdafea256073
> >
> > What do you think about this case ?
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
> > > classes from DistributeLog.
> > > All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I
> > > agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially
> > now
> > > that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
> > >
> > > So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a
> > > vision/roadmap
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>.
How about make class OrderedSafeExecutor extends OrderedScheduler. then all
the old reference in bk will not need change, and in future dl will also
survive?
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2017-09-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
> > BookKeeper,
> >
> > Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
> >
> >
> > I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be used
> by
> > both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap for
> > porting them all at once.
> >
>
>
> OK it makes sense to me
>
> For instance in the work of BP-15 I have copied all the classes from
> distributed log concurrent package because they included FutureUtils and
> the test cases were "mixed" with a new OrderedScheduler
> In this case should we port only the FutureUtils class ?
> Charan in fact commented in the PR that the new OrderedScheduler is like a
> duplicate of SafeOrderedExecutor
>
> see
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/510/files#diff-
> 7b4bf6e4bd61d819b3d7cdafea256073
>
> What do you think about this case ?
>
> Enrico
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
> > classes from DistributeLog.
> > All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I
> > agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially
> now
> > that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
> >
> > So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a
> > vision/roadmap
> >
> > Cheers
> > Enrico
> >
>
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>.
How about make class OrderedSafeExecutor extends OrderedScheduler. then all
the old reference in bk will not need change, and in future dl will also
survive?
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2017-09-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
> > BookKeeper,
> >
> > Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
> >
> >
> > I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be used
> by
> > both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap for
> > porting them all at once.
> >
>
>
> OK it makes sense to me
>
> For instance in the work of BP-15 I have copied all the classes from
> distributed log concurrent package because they included FutureUtils and
> the test cases were "mixed" with a new OrderedScheduler
> In this case should we port only the FutureUtils class ?
> Charan in fact commented in the PR that the new OrderedScheduler is like a
> duplicate of SafeOrderedExecutor
>
> see
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/510/files#diff-
> 7b4bf6e4bd61d819b3d7cdafea256073
>
> What do you think about this case ?
>
> Enrico
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
> > classes from DistributeLog.
> > All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I
> > agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially
> now
> > that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
> >
> > So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a
> > vision/roadmap
> >
> > Cheers
> > Enrico
> >
>
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.
2017-09-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>:
> On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
> BookKeeper,
>
> Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
>
>
> I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be used by
> both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap for
> porting them all at once.
>
OK it makes sense to me
For instance in the work of BP-15 I have copied all the classes from
distributed log concurrent package because they included FutureUtils and
the test cases were "mixed" with a new OrderedScheduler
In this case should we port only the FutureUtils class ?
Charan in fact commented in the PR that the new OrderedScheduler is like a
duplicate of SafeOrderedExecutor
see
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/510/files#diff-7b4bf6e4bd61d819b3d7cdafea256073
What do you think about this case ?
Enrico
>
>
> I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
> classes from DistributeLog.
> All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I
> agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially now
> that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
>
> So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a
> vision/roadmap
>
> Cheers
> Enrico
>
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.
2017-09-27 16:14 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>:
> On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
> BookKeeper,
>
> Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
>
>
> I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be used by
> both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap for
> porting them all at once.
>
OK it makes sense to me
For instance in the work of BP-15 I have copied all the classes from
distributed log concurrent package because they included FutureUtils and
the test cases were "mixed" with a new OrderedScheduler
In this case should we port only the FutureUtils class ?
Charan in fact commented in the PR that the new OrderedScheduler is like a
duplicate of SafeOrderedExecutor
see
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/510/files#diff-7b4bf6e4bd61d819b3d7cdafea256073
What do you think about this case ?
Enrico
>
>
> I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
> classes from DistributeLog.
> All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I
> agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially now
> that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
>
> So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a
> vision/roadmap
>
> Cheers
> Enrico
>
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
BookKeeper,
Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be used by
both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap for
porting them all at once.
I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
classes from DistributeLog.
All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I
agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially now
that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a vision/roadmap
Cheers
Enrico
Re: Porting DistributedLog utilities to BookKeeper
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 27, 2017 5:12 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
we are porting (cut and paste) many utilities from DistributedLog to
BookKeeper,
Do we have a clear roadmap on this work ?
I think it only makes sense to port when this class is going to be used by
both BK and DL. It is a defer/lazy operation, rather than a roadmap for
porting them all at once.
I think that this makes sense especially if we are going to drop such
classes from DistributeLog.
All the ported utilities are a great work and it is very valuable and I
agree on the fact the it is best not to have duplicate code, especially now
that DL is a subproject of BK and BK is a core dependency for DL
So I am totally OK with this work but I would like to share a vision/roadmap
Cheers
Enrico