I think that a single supported name for config keys is the right way to go. Agree with the proposal. I haven't seen a convincing example in this thread of why config key aliases would be useful. For UI purposes we could have "keywords" that point you to a key you might be looking for, but upon selection you'd get the only supported name for that key. The description could include those keywords or they could live in a separate entry if it really need its own space. This way it's possible to do exploratory programming but in the end you get a canonical yaml. When looking at reference documentation you again see the same key name and use it, without being offered alternative list of names for that key.
People's expectations are that there's one and only way to set a value in the blueprint. I've had to explain the difference between (for example) env & shell.env and that's surprising behaviour to users. They are used to reference documentation containing a single key that they can use. Having deprecated aliases is a valid use case so +1. We are not at a point where we can warn users in the UI for using deprecated names, but even having the documentation spell them out as deprecated and pointing users to a link is very useful. I expect this functionality to get used infrequently. Mostly for typos or names which turn out to be ambiguous. Svet. > On 5.12.2016 г., at 16:44, Andrew Kennedy <andrew.kenn...@cloudsoftcorp.com> > wrote: > > I think that there are always tradeoffs when you introduce flexibility, and > I don't know that the flexibility of multiple names for config keys > provides any specific benefit, but just adds confusion. But, we end up with > the problem that we support it just now, so we cannot remove the capability > without breaking existing blueprints. > > So, I would like to see the short form config keys deprecated. > > As to the path required to make this happen, I guess we need to have a > mechanism that will warn blueprint authors that @SetFromFlag names are > deprecated. We don't need to actually force them to stop using them, or > handle a way of changing the short form to the canonical form *yet* but > that seems like it will be the next step. > > I think the idea of a canonical form of our YAML is a good idea, and if > YOML will enable this, we should definitely go down that path. This raises > the additional issue of *where* the config keys should be defined (even if > they have the right names) - either at root or in brooklyn.config. I > personally favour a canonical use of brooklyn.config here, and it would be > awesome to have a tool like gofmt that could canonicalize any of our > blueprints. > > Once we have these capabilities we can move beyond just semantically > deprecating the various old formats of YAML blueprints, and actually go and > think about the process for removing support. > > Finally, it seems like we might find it useful to version out blueprint > YAML formats, and maybe these changes should happen in something we define > as Brooklyn YAML 2.0? This would maybe accompany the YOML support? > > Thanks, > Andrew. > > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 at 10:09 Aled Sage <aled.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > // The @SetFromFlag is an implementation detail - this proposal is just > to discuss whether we should have aliases. > > As Alex says, the main problem being solved is that having multiple > names makes things confusing (even if we were to fix other > inconsistencies so that those names could be used in the same way anywhere). > > --- > Alex suggests having a "clear preferred way -- a canonical form if you > like -- for any blueprint, and the ability to output things in that format." > > Two things scare me about that: > > 1. It suggests that we go to the effort of supporting an alternative > name, but make sure we never use that alternate name in any of our > examples and thus try to make sure users don't use it. If so, why is > it there? Will it just lead to confusion when someone comes across a > blueprint that uses the short-form name, which is thus different > from all "official" examples? > 2. For "output things in that format", their YAML blueprint is likely > in version control (or blog, or whatever). We are thus not changing > their blueprint. If they use a short-form name, then that will > continue to be in version control. If the blueprint is added to an > online catalog, it will continue to use that short-form name > (because we'd show in the catalog the exact blueprint from their git > repo). > > --- > Alex says "It also gives us an easy way to update a blueprint where > things are deprecated/changed." > > I don't follow - are we talking about solving different problems, or is > your vision of PR #363 that we eventually replace the EntitySpec and > ConfigKey classes, and the `brooklyn.parameters` as well? > > Let's take a concrete use-cases. (let's not argue/discuss the specific > names, and instead focus on the use-cases): > > Someone writes a blueprint with `enricher.sourceSensor: cpuUsage`. We > deprecate "enricher.sourceSensor", preferring the name "sourceSensor". > > The desired behaviour (IMO) is that: > > 1. We continue to support both names for X releases/months. > 2. The blueprint author is warned about use of the deprecated name > (next time they validate, or next time they deploy). > 3. The entity's type show the new name and deprecated name(s). This is > also included in auto-generated docs (similar to auto-generated > javadoc), and is available for Brooklyn's YAML composer to give > warnings (either while editing, or when the blueprint is submitted). > > I'm guessing what you mean by "easy way to update a blueprint" is for > the persisted state: to switch the name that is written to the persisted > state, so that it uses the new name. That is probably good, but we > should think carefully about implications for rolling back to older > Brooklyn versions. > > --- > For comparing "long-name syntax" versus short "flag name" with CLIs... > > CLIs usually follow a very specific convention, e.g. `diff -w` and `diff > --ignore-all-space`; except for java which uses single "-" for both > short and long form - a very bad thing in my opinion :-) > > Some CLIs (like `br`) accept long and short forms (e.g. `br application` > or `br app`). This is ok because the context is never ambiguous - you > never pass "application" or "app" to a different command, expecting > different behaviour / ambiguity for it then invoking `br`. > > --- > If we conclude that aliases are sometimes a good idea, we should agree > when and how they should be used (e.g. is it primarily for short-form; > is it for multiple sensible names; is it for supporting camel-case > versus dot or underscore forms; etc). > > Unfortunately our aliases are massively over used in Brooklyn (in my > opinion), in an ad hoc manner. Most (if not all) should be deprecated. > > Aled > > > On 22/11/2016 22:31, Alex Heneveld wrote: >> >> Hi Aled - >> >> There are a few more things that I think need to be considered here. >> Also, combining your proposals. >> >> Firstly -- throughout Brooklyn we use the long-name syntax as an >> internal / formal name of a key to prevent ambiguity, and a short >> "flag name" to make it easy for a user to write. This is sometimes >> useful where you set a config key at the root, using the formal name, >> so that it is inherited at a specific descendant. If we don't need to >> rely on inheritance this argument goes away somewhat but I don't think >> we're there yet. >> >> Secondly -- what problem are we trying to solve? I think we should be >> dismissive of proposals that don't solve a problem. Yours does but it >> doesn't say what that problem is. I think the problem is that having >> multiple ways to do the same thing can be confusing, especially if >> docs and examples are inconsistent. >> >> I think a better solution that that problem is a clear *preferred* way >> -- a canonical form if you like -- for any blueprint, and the ability >> to output things in that format. >> >> This means users looking at our docs and examples -- or anything that >> uses canonical forms -- will see a consistent style. It eliminates >> some, if not all, of the confusion which is the problem. >> >> It also gives us an easy way to update a blueprint where things are >> deprecated/changed. >> >> I'd much prefer going that route than the proposal you suggest, and >> then deciding after that whether deprecating all aliases is the right >> thing. (Given the short/long distinction I'd prefer the idea that >> "all-but-one" alias might be deprecated in most cases. But I'm also >> unsure that with a canonical form and good tooling, aliases might >> actually be a good thing. They are commonplace in more text >> interactive scripting -- which this approaches, as opposed to the >> method names in Aled's proposal. Think of CLI arguments and of course >> the text adventure games of our youth... >> >> (As you know this is largely implemented in #363, at which point >> deprecated @SetFromFlag and moving to preferred aliases becomes >> simple, and optionally saying that all or any non-preferred alias is >> deprecated.) >> >> --A >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/363 >> >> >> On 22/11/2016 21:48, Aled Sage wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> TL;DR: aliases for config keys should be deprecated. Each config key >>> should have only one proper name, with other names deprecated. >>> >>> We should change this *after* releasing 0.10.0, to decrease risk. >>> >>> (This was mentioned in the email thread "[PROPOSAL] Deprecate >>> @SetFromFlag"). >>> >>> _*Current Situation*_ >>> When defining a config keys in Java, one can add an annotation like: >>> >>> @SetFromFlag("version") >>> ConfigKey<String> SUGGESTED_VERSION = >>> newStringConfigKey("install.version", "Suggested version"); >>> >>> This alternative name specified in @SetFromFlag is respected in some >>> situations, but not others. >>> >>> _*Requirements*_ >>> The desire to support multiple names can be split into three >>> different use-cases: >>> >>> 1. Backwards compatibility (e.g. because we already support two names, >>> so need to keep doing that; or because we want to rename a config >>> key, such as correcting its spelling). >>> This use-case could be reworded as the need to support deprecated >>> names. >>> It is covered in the email thread "[PROPOSAL] Deprecate >>> @SetFromFlag". >>> 2. Aliases (i.e. a deliberate desire to support different names, >>> because those different names are seen as good). >>> 3. Hints on blueprint validation in a composer (e.g. >>> "environment.variables not valid; did you mean env?") >>> >>> _*Proposal: Don't Use Aliases For Config Keys*_ >>> I propose that we deprecate support for use-case (2) above: use of >>> aliases. >>> >>> The use of aliases leads to confusion about what the different names >>> mean. When someone is looking at examples, it's unclear whether they >>> mean the same thing, or if one is valid but the other is not. There >>> is a scary amount of folk lore about config key names already! >>> >>> Example blueprints have a tendency to proliferate: a blueprint >>> written within a company adopting Brooklyn is often used as the basis >>> for other blueprints. If we support an alias without a very obvious >>> deprecation warning in the YAML composer, then use of that alias will >>> spread. >>> >>> --- >>> Note that this is a separate discussion from whether our existing >>> names are right! There are probably a lot of names we should >>> deprecate and improve. >>> >>> _*Proposal: Guidelines for "deprecated"*_ >>> For use-case (1) above, i.e. deprecated names, we should treat that >>> in a similar way to Java deprecated methods. >>> >>> We should *not* add a deprecated name just because we think it's a >>> nice alternative name. We should only add deprecated names when it is >>> an undesirable name that we need to support for backwards compatibility. >>> >>> For example, if someone submitted a pull request with three methods >>> that all did the same thing, then I'd reject that PR - e.g. >>> sort(collection), arrange(collection) and order(collection). >>> >>> _*Proposal: Hints for Names*_ >>> There is a compelling argument for providing hints for incorrect >>> names, particularly when using an online YAML composer or when >>> validating a YAML blueprint. >>> >>> For example, if someone uses "environment.variables" but the real >>> name is "env", then a validation warning can be shown with an error >>> message proposing the correct name. >>> >>> This could be achieved by providing "close names". If the name >>> matches another config key, then that would be used. Otherwise, if >>> the name matches a "close name" of a config key, then it would show >>> the validation warning. Note that it is a warning rather than an >>> error because of the rules for config inheritance: it could be that >>> the config key will be inherited by children that will understand the >>> given name. >>> >>> We could have a "strict" mode that treated such warnings as errors >>> (sounds like a topic for a different email thread!). >>> >>> We could do some similar automatic checks for close matches, e.g. to >>> warn if "installCommand" is used instead of "install.command". >>> >>> To me, it feels like "hints" is stage two - i.e. lower priority than >>> agreeing each config key should have a single definitive name, and >>> deprecating the other names. >>> >>> >> > > -- > > Andrew Kennedy ; Founder clocker.io project ; @grkvlt ; Cloudsoft
