> Two-way requests (from clients to server and from server to clients) Alex, can you please clarify the need for server->client requests?
> compute tasks in any language that implemented thin client protocol (python as a first candidate) Nikolay, do you have anything in mind here? Why Python? On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:13 PM Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:48 PM Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello, Sergey! > > > > > > >> 3. Ignite doesn't have roles/authorization functionality for now. > > > > > > I can't agree with you. > > > > My bad, you're right. But the IEP page provided by you is limited and > there's no clear how it works for thin clients > > > > We already have authorization functionality in Ignite and for a thin > > client too [1]. > > > > But, compute support for a thin client requires some additional efforts > to > > get an appropriate SecurityContext on a remote node. > > > > The list of tasks allowed for subjects, including thin clients, is the > > area of responsibility of GridSecurityProcessor [2]. > > > > > > > > 1. > > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.security.client.ThinClientPermissionCheckTest > > 2. > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.security.GridSecurityProcessor > > > > > > чт, 21 нояб. 2019 г. в 12:41, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > >> Good points, Sergey. > >> Maybe you are right, and Java-based compute without peer deployment is a > >> good first step for thin clients. > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:32 PM Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Pavel > >> > > >> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:30 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > 1. I believe that Cluster operations for Thin Client protocol are > >> already > >> > > in the works > >> > > by Alexandr Shapkin. Can't find the ticket though. > >> > > Alexandr, can you please confirm and attach the ticket number? > >> > > > >> > > 2. Proposed changes will work only for Java tasks that are already > >> > deployed > >> > > on server nodes. > >> > > This is mostly useless for other thin clients we have (Python, PHP, > >> .NET, > >> > > C++). > >> > > > >> > > >> > I don't guess so. The task (execution) is a way to implement own layer > >> for > >> > the thin client application. > >> > > >> > > >> > > We should think of a way to make this useful for all clients. > >> > > For example, we may allow sending tasks in some scripting language > >> like > >> > > Javascript. > >> > > Thoughts? > >> > > > >> > > >> > The arbitrary code execution from a remote client must be protected > >> > from malicious code. > >> > I don't know how it could be designed but without that we open the > hole > >> to > >> > kill cluster. > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:21 AM Sergey Kozlov < > skoz...@gridgain.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Alex > >> > > > > >> > > > The idea is great. But I have some concerns that probably should > be > >> > taken > >> > > > into account for design: > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. We need to have the ability to stop a task execution, smth > >> like > >> > > > OP_COMPUTE_CANCEL_TASK operation (client to server) > >> > > > 2. What's about task execution timeout? It may help to the > >> cluster > >> > > > survival for buggy tasks > >> > > > 3. Ignite doesn't have roles/authorization functionality for > now. > >> > But > >> > > a > >> > > > task is the risky operation for cluster (for security reasons). > >> > Could > >> > > we > >> > > > add for Ignite configuration new options: > >> > > > - Explicit turning on for compute task support for thin > >> protocol > >> > > > (disabled by default) for whole cluster > >> > > > - Explicit turning on for compute task support for a node > >> > > > - The list of task names (classes) allowed to execute by > thin > >> > > client. > >> > > > 4. Support the labeling for task that may help to investigate > >> issues > >> > > on > >> > > > cluster (the idea from IEP-34 [1]) > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-34+Thin+client%3A+transactions+support > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:58 AM Alex Plehanov < > >> > plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hello, Igniters! > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I have plans to start implementation of Compute interface for > >> Ignite > >> > > thin > >> > > > > client and want to discuss features that should be implemented. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > We already have Compute implementation for binary-rest clients > >> > > > > (GridClientCompute), which have the following functionality: > >> > > > > - Filtering cluster nodes (projection) for compute > >> > > > > - Executing task by the name > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I think we can implement this functionality in a thin client as > >> well. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > First of all, we need some operation types to request a list of > >> all > >> > > > > available nodes and probably node attributes (by a list of > nodes). > >> > Node > >> > > > > attributes will be helpful if we will decide to implement analog > >> of > >> > > > > ClusterGroup#forAttribute or ClusterGroup#forePredicate methods > in > >> > the > >> > > > thin > >> > > > > client. Perhaps they can be requested lazily. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > From the protocol point of view there will be two new > operations: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > OP_CLUSTER_GET_NODES > >> > > > > Request: empty > >> > > > > Response: long topologyVersion, int minorTopologyVersion, int > >> > > nodesCount, > >> > > > > for each node set of node fields (UUID nodeId, Object or String > >> > > > > consistentId, long order, etc) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > OP_CLUSTER_GET_NODE_ATTRIBUTES > >> > > > > Request: int nodesCount, for each node: UUID nodeId > >> > > > > Response: int nodesCount, for each node: int attributesCount, > for > >> > each > >> > > > node > >> > > > > attribute: String name, Object value > >> > > > > > >> > > > > To execute tasks we need something like these methods in the > >> client > >> > > API: > >> > > > > Object execute(String task, Object arg) > >> > > > > Future<Object> executeAsync(String task, Object arg) > >> > > > > Object affinityExecute(String task, String cache, Object key, > >> Object > >> > > arg) > >> > > > > Future<Object> affinityExecuteAsync(String task, String cache, > >> Object > >> > > > key, > >> > > > > Object arg) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Which can be mapped to protocol operations: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK > >> > > > > Request: UUID nodeId, String taskName, Object arg > >> > > > > Response: Object result > >> > > > > > >> > > > > OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK_AFFINITY > >> > > > > Request: String cacheName, Object key, String taskName, Object > arg > >> > > > > Response: Object result > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The second operation is needed because we sometimes can't > >> calculate > >> > and > >> > > > > connect to affinity node on the client-side (affinity awareness > >> can > >> > be > >> > > > > disabled, custom affinity function can be used or there can be > no > >> > > > > connection between client and affinity node), but we can make > best > >> > > effort > >> > > > > to send request to target node if affinity awareness is enabled. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Currently, on the server-side requests always processed > >> synchronously > >> > > and > >> > > > > responses are sent right after request was processed. To execute > >> long > >> > > > tasks > >> > > > > async we should whether change this logic or introduce some kind > >> > > two-way > >> > > > > communication between client and server (now only one-way > requests > >> > from > >> > > > > client to server are allowed). > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Two-way communication can also be useful in the future if we > will > >> > send > >> > > > some > >> > > > > server-side generated events to clients. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > In case of two-way communication there can be new operations > >> > > introduced: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > OP_COMPUTE_EXECUTE_TASK (from client to server) > >> > > > > Request: UUID nodeId, String taskName, Object arg > >> > > > > Response: long taskId > >> > > > > > >> > > > > OP_COMPUTE_TASK_FINISHED (from server to client) > >> > > > > Request: taskId, Object result > >> > > > > Response: empty > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The same for affinity requests. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Also, we can implement not only execute task operation, but some > >> > other > >> > > > > operations from IgniteCompute (broadcast, run, call), but it > will > >> be > >> > > > useful > >> > > > > only for java thin client. And even with java thin client we > >> should > >> > > > whether > >> > > > > implement peer-class-loading for thin clients (this also > requires > >> > > two-way > >> > > > > client-server communication) or put classes with executed > >> closures to > >> > > the > >> > > > > server locally. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > What do you think about proposed protocol changes? > >> > > > > Do we need two-way requests between client and server? > >> > > > > Do we need support of compute methods other than "execute task"? > >> > > > > What do you think about peer-class-loading for thin clients? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Sergey Kozlov > >> > > > GridGain Systems > >> > > > www.gridgain.com > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Sergey Kozlov > >> > GridGain Systems > >> > www.gridgain.com > >> > > >> > > > > -- > Sergey Kozlov > GridGain Systems > www.gridgain.com >
