That does look cleaner -- I still support the 2x methods in your example
because it seems like deprecated does not necessarily imply disabled, and
vice versa. So it's nice to have independent settings for each.
On Aug 20, 2015 8:58 AM, "Svetoslav Neykov" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> No strong feelings for flags vs enums;
>
> As for the API I think that the REST-y way to do it would be:
>
> POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/deprecated
> POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/disabled
> with a body of true/false
>
> vs
>
> POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/availability
> with a body of available/deprecated/disabled.
>
> The property can be seen as a resource, but it's value it not one so
> shouldn't get a URL.
>
> Svet.
>
>
> > On 20.08.2015 г., at 15:12, Aled Sage <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to finish this soon, so would like to reach consensus:
> >
> > I lean towards boolean for deprecated:
> >
> > * because disabling/enabling shouldn't clear whether it is "deprecated"
> > * because google images use a separate piece of metadata for each of
> > deprecated, obsolete and deleted (and hopefully they thought about
> > it a lot; they also have "reason").
> >
> > ---
> > We can refactor it later - it's (mostly) back-end stuff.
> >
> > However, we'd need to be careful to transform the catalog item's
> persisted state (which will store the booleans).
> >
> > The REST API also implies a mental model of separate metadata
> properties. The api allows:
> > POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/deprecated/true
> > POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/deprecated/false
> > POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/disabled/true
> > POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/disabled/false
> >
> > An alternative would be something like:
> > POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/availability/available
> > POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/availability/deprecated
> > POST /v1/catalog/{itemId}/availability/disabled
> >
> > Aled
> >
> >
> > On 19/08/2015 14:55, Aled Sage wrote:
> >> Thanks Alex, all,
> >>
> >> I'd just finished implementing the basic "boolean disabled"
> functionality [1].
> >>
> >> Yes, disabled is stronger than deprecated.
> >>
> >> Enumeration: interesting suggestion. Not sure - hard to know what if
> any other states we'd add, and whether there's any use-case for setting as
> both deprecated + disabled.
> >> I am tempted to change to an enumeration, even though I don't want to
> have to do more work on it right now!
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> "Replacement" field (as GCE have). Nice idea. Can be added
> separately/later, I think. Normally it's because there is a newer version
> of the blueprint that should be used instead, which is fairly self evident.
> But I'm sure it would be useful in other situations.
> >>
> >> Aled
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-brooklyn/pull/850 (but needs
> rebased against master for package renames)
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19/08/2015 14:36, Alex Heneveld wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1 to the idea of "disabled"
> >>>
> >>> Presumably disabled is stronger than deprecated. Do we want both as
> booleans or an enum e.g. "availability" ?
> >>>
> >>> Could be nice to have a "replacement" field (which can be set to refer
> to a catalog item to use instead) and perhaps an availability_comment
> (free-form text on why something is deprecated/disabled)... just some
> thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> --A
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 19/08/2015 14:20, Andrea Turli wrote:
> >>>> Hi Aled,
> >>>>
> >>>> not different, simply I was wondering if a schema like the one used
> in GCE
> >>>>
> >>>> {
> >>>> "state": string,
> >>>> "replacement": string,
> >>>> "deprecated": string,
> >>>> "obsolete": string,
> >>>> "deleted": string
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> could have been of any help.
> >>>> Seems like `disabled` is similar to `obsolete` so your proposal is in
> line
> >>>> with GCE approach, I think.
> >>>>
> >>>> My two cents,
> >>>> Andrea
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 15:06 Aled Sage <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Andrea,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are attaching metadata to the persisted catalog item. One can
> >>>>> explicitly set "deprecated" on a catalog item, and the proposal is to
> >>>>> add support for "disabled".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is the GCE metadata a different approach from this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aled
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 19/08/2015 13:02, Andrea Turli wrote:
> >>>>>> Aled,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> interesting problem!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't want to confuse things, but this reminds me of something
> I've
> >>>>> seen
> >>>>>> before. Could metadata attached to the blueprint be an idea, like
> they do
> >>>>>> for images at GCE [1]?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Andrea
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1]:
> >>>>>
> https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/reference/latest/images/deprecate
> >>>>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 12:11 Alasdair Hodge <
> >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Agree with your proposal, Aled: WARN on deployment of any
> >>>>>>> deprecated/superseded catalog item, but permit it. Could also emit
> a
> >>>>>>> (different?) warning when rebinding to deprecated catalog items,
> but
> >>>>>>> that's less important IMO. I might even suggest that deprecated
> items
> >>>>>>> should still be available in the UI, but clearly discouraged for
> >>>>>>> deployment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Agree with "disabled" in principle, but wonder how likely is it
> that
> >>>>>>> users will actually maintain that attribute on old catalog items.
> >>>>>>> Probably the best (== least surprising) available option however.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your customer might appreciate a launch option or
> brooklyn.property to
> >>>>>>> force deprecation warnings to be treated as errors, much like
> >>>>>>> configurable IDE settings for various compiler warnings.
> "--strict" or
> >>>>>>> something.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A.
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Alasdair Hodge
> >>>>>>> Principal Engineer,
> >>>>>>> Cloudsoft Corporation
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 18/08/2015 20:01, Aled Sage wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A customer has asked that Brooklyn give an error when attempting
> to
> >>>>>>>> deploy "deprecated" catalog items (i.e. refuse to deploy them).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In my opinion, this is not quite the classic meaning of
> "deprecated"
> >>>>>>>> [1,2]. I suggest we add another state for catalog items (e.g.
> >>>>>>> "disabled").
> >>>>>>>> Do people agree? Or think we should change the behaviour of
> deprecated?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _*Existing behaviour*_
> >>>>>>>> Items in the catalog can be marked as deprecated. This means the
> item
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> still kept in the catalog, but its metadata says "deprecated".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In the Brooklyn web-console "add application" wizard, the
> deprecated
> >>>>>>>> item is hidden. However, if you specify that exact version in
> YAML,
> >>>>> then
> >>>>>>>> you can still use it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Note: it's important to not delete the catalog item if any
> applications
> >>>>>>>> are using it. On rebind (i.e. restarting Brooklyn), we want to be
> able
> >>>>>>>> to find the catalog item for class-loading purposes (e.g. to find
> out
> >>>>>>>> the right OSGi bundles).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _*Proposal*_
> >>>>>>>> We leave "deprecated" to have (mostly) the existing behaviour. We
> >>>>>>>> augment this to log.warn whenever an app is deployed that is
> >>>>> deprecated.
> >>>>>>>> (It would be nice to show in the web-console that a deprecated
> app was
> >>>>>>>> used, but I suggest we defer that).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We add "disabled". When a catalog item is disabled, it cannot be
> used
> >>>>>>>> for deploying new apps. Any such attempt would give an error.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _*In the future...*_
> >>>>>>>> Longer term, we could consider changing the behaviour of
> "deleting" a
> >>>>>>>> catalog item. For example, the item would no longer be listable or
> >>>>>>>> usable. However, it would not be expunged from the catalog until
> there
> >>>>>>>> were no more active uses of that catalog item. This would be
> detected
> >>>>>>>> automatically (akin to garbage collection).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We could perhaps add an "expunge" for catalog items that entirely
> >>>>>>>> deleted it from the catalog, even if app instances existed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Aled
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation
> >>>>>>>> "indicate that it should be avoided"
> >>>>>>>> "a feature, design, or practice that is permitted but no
> longer
> >>>>>>>> recommended"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [2]
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Deprecated.html
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
> >>>>>>> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee
> only.
> >>>>> If
> >>>>>>> the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please
> >>>>> return
> >>>>>>> the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the
> message
> >>>>>>> from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure.
> >>>>> Cloudsoft
> >>>>>>> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes
> made to
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>>> message after it was sent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the
> transmission of
> >>>>>>> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that
> the
> >>>>>>> onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any
> attachments
> >>>>>>> will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
> >>>>>>> accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the
> >>>>> recipient
> >>>>>>> should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers
> >>>>> appropriate.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>
> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
> the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
> the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
> from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
> message after it was sent.
>
> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
> onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
> will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
> accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
> should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
>
--
Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
message after it was sent.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
