You can avoid the permission issues by attaching it to an Apache jira.
On 10/11/17, 6:10 PM, "James Sirota" <jsir...@apache.org> wrote:
I can't see it. You probably want to link to a google drive
11.10.2017, 18:01, "Michael Miklavcic" <michael.miklav...@gmail.com>:
> I attached a PDF - shows up on my end. Is that not coming through?
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think there is a missing attachment?
>>
>> On October 11, 2017 at 20:22:33, Michael Miklavcic (
>> michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>> For community reference, here is a class diagram that depicts our
current
>> Metron 0.4.1 dependencies, for both prod and test code, against the old
ES
>> client APIs along with an "after" diagram showing the world with the new
>> client. Feedback welcome.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I agree with what Michael "fine whine" Miklavcic said; I'm in
favor
>>> of the high level client.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
>>> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Justin, thanks for the feedback! I'm inclined to agree with you about
>>> using
>>> > the high level client. It's a bummer that we still need to do jar
>>> shading,
>>> > but I think that's a reasonable short term sacrifice considering the
>>> other
>>> > benefits. And they're angling towards slowly removing the ES core dep
>>> over
>>> > time anyhow so, like myself, this will get better with age.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Do we intend on (or have interest in) supporting ES across major
>>> version
>>> > > for a given version of Metron? I'm not convinced it's worth the
work
>>> of
>>> > > using the low level client.
>>> > >
>>> > > This really only seems useful for ES clusters that are being used
>>> outside
>>> > > Metron and need to be on a different ES major version. Is that a
use
>>> case
>>> > > we want/need to support? I'm willing to bet it's significantly more
>>> work
>>> > > and means we're modifying queries and even templates/mappings
based on
>>> > what
>>> > > ES version we're interacting with (e.g. meta alerts in 5.x can
>>> exploit a
>>> > > query param to not screw around with the mapping, but that param
>>> doesn't
>>> > > exist in 2.x). At that point, we're either back to writing for ES
2.x
>>> or
>>> > > writing for every version of ES.
>>> > >
>>> > > Unless that's something we have a demand for (or someone else
>>> persuades
>>> > me
>>> > > otherwise), I'm in favor of using the high level client. It seems
>>> like
>>> > > it'd be easier to migrate to also, given the similarities API-wise
to
>>> the
>>> > > current client we're using.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
>>> > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > I think it might help the discussion to share my impressions of
>>> looking
>>> > > > over the new API recommendations from ES. I've summarized some
info
>>> > > > provided by ES back in December 2016 regarding the reasons for
>>> > switching
>>> > > to
>>> > > > a new client model. [1]
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *Summary points:*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Pre-5.x had Java API - binary exchange format used for
node-to-node
>>> > > > communications.
>>> > > > In 5.x a low level REST API was added. Now there's also a high
level
>>> > REST
>>> > > > client that handles request marshalling and response
un-marshalling.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *Benefits of existing Java API*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1. Theoretically faster - binary format, no JSON parsing
>>> > > > 2. Hardened, used for internal ES node to node communications
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *Cons of Java API*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1. Benchmarks show it's not really that much faster.
>>> > > > 2. Backwards compatibility - Java API changes often.
>>> > > > 3. Upgrades more challenging - need to refactor client code for
>>> new
>>> > > and
>>> > > > deprecated features.
>>> > > > 4. Minor releases may contain breaking changes in the Java API
>>> > > > 5. Client and server *should* be on same JVM version (not as
>>> > important
>>> > > > post 2.x, but still potentially necessary bc of serialization
>>> > w/binary
>>> > > > format)
>>> > > > 6. Requires dependency on the entire elasticsearch server in
>>> order
>>> > to
>>> > > > use the client. We end up shading jars.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *Benefits of new REST API*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1. Upgrades
>>> > > > 1. Breaking changes only made in major releases - "We are very
>>> > > > careful with backwards compatibility on the REST layer where
>>> > > breaking
>>> > > > changes are made only in major releases."
>>> > > > 2. "The REST interface is much more stable and can be upgraded
>>> > out
>>> > > of
>>> > > > step with the Elasticsearch cluster."
>>> > > > 2. REST client and server can be on different JVM's
>>> > > > 3. Dependencies for the low level client are very slim. No need
>>> for
>>> > > > shading.
>>> > > > 4. The RestHighLevelClient supports the same request and response
>>> > > > objects as the TransportClient
>>> > > > 5. Can be secured via HTTPS
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There are some additional benefits to the new API, however they
>>> depend
>>> > on
>>> > > > whether we choose to go with the high or low level client. More
>>> > comments
>>> > > > below.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *Cons of new API*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1. Dependencies - The high level client still requires the full
>>> ES
>>> > > > dependency, though this will slim down in future releases.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *Other comments specific to Metron*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There's a question of whether we should use the low or high level
>>> REST
>>> > > > client. The main differences between the two are how they handle
lib
>>> > > > dependencies and marshaling/unmarshaling. The low level client
>>> cleans
>>> > up
>>> > > > the dependencies dramatically, whereas the high level client
still
>>> > > requires
>>> > > > you to depend on elasticsearch core. On the other hand, the low
>>> level
>>> > > > client does no work to handle marshaling/unmarshaling the
>>> > > > requests/responses from the HTTP calls while the high level
client
>>> > > handles
>>> > > > this for you and exposes api-specific methods. The high level
client
>>> > > > accepts the same request arguments as the TransportClient and
>>> returns
>>> > the
>>> > > > same response objects. One more thing to note is that the low
level
>>> > > client
>>> > > > claims to be compatible with all versions of ES whereas the high
>>> level
>>> > > > client appears to be only major version compatible.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > "The 5.6 client can communicate with any 5.6.x Elasticsearch
node.
>>> > > Previous
>>> > > > 5.x minor versions like 5.5.x, 5.4.x etc. are not (fully)
>>> supported."
>>> > [2]
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Just as an example, here's a simple comparison of an index
request
>>> in
>>> > the
>>> > > > low and high level API's.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *Low Level*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Map<String, String> params = Collections.emptyMap();
>>> > > > String jsonString = "{" +
>>> > > > "\"user\":\"kimchy\"," +
>>> > > > "\"postDate\":\"2013-01-30\"," +
>>> > > > "\"message\":\"trying out Elasticsearch\"" +
>>> > > > "}";
>>> > > > HttpEntity entity = new NStringEntity(jsonString,
>>> > > > ContentType.APPLICATION_JSON);
>>> > > > Response response = restClient.performRequest("PUT",
>>> "/posts/doc/1",
>>> > > > params, entity);
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *High Level*
>>> > > >
>>> > > > IndexRequest indexRequest = new IndexRequest("posts", "doc", "1")
>>> > > > .source("user", "kimchy",
>>> > > > "postDate", new Date(),
>>> > > > "message", "trying out Elasticsearch");
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *Note*: there are a few ways to do this with the high level API,
but
>>> > this
>>> > > > was the most concise for me to offer a comparison of benefits
over
>>> the
>>> > > low
>>> > > > level API.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > *Thoughts/Recommendations*: I do think we should migrate to the
new
>>> > API.
>>> > > I
>>> > > > think the question is which of the new APIs we should use. The
high
>>> > level
>>> > > > client seems to shield us from having to deal with constructing
>>> special
>>> > > > JSON handling code, whereas the low level client handles all
>>> versions
>>> > of
>>> > > > ES. I don't have a good feel (yet) for just how much work it
would
>>> > > require
>>> > > > to use the low level API, or how difficult it would be to add new
>>> > request
>>> > > > features in the future. Actually, we could probably leverage
>>> existing
>>> > > code
>>> > > > we have for dealing with JSON maps, so this might be really easy.
>>> > Someone
>>> > > > with more experience in Metron's ES client use might have a
better
>>> idea
>>> > > of
>>> > > > the pros and cons to this. The high level client appears to
handle
>>> > > > everything all JSON manipulation for us, but we lose the benefit
of
>>> a
>>> > > > simpler dependency tree and support for all versions of ES. My
only
>>> > > concern
>>> > > > with "supports all versions" is that I have to imagine there are
>>> > specific
>>> > > > calls that we'd have to be careful of when constructing the JSON
>>> > > requests,
>>> > > > so it's unclear to me if this is better or worse in the end.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Best,
>>> > > > Mike
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1. https://www.elastic.co/blog/state-of-the-official-
>>> > > > elasticsearch-java-clients
>>> > > > 2. https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/client/java-
>>> > > > rest/current/java-rest-high-compatibility.html
>>> > > > <https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/client/java-
>>> > > > rest/current/java-rest-high-compatibility.html>
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
>>> > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > I am working on upgrading Elasticsearch and Kibana. There are
>>> quite a
>>> > > few
>>> > > > > changes involved with this vix. I believe I'm mostly finished
with
>>> > the
>>> > > > > Ambari mpack side of things, however we currently only support
one
>>> > > > version
>>> > > > > with no backwards compatibility. What is the community's
thoughts
>>> on
>>> > > > this?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Here is some work contributed to the community that I'm
>>> referencing
>>> > > while
>>> > > > > working on this upgrade - https://github.com/apache/
>>> > > > metron/pull/619/files
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Best,
>>> > > > > Michael Miklavcic
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
-------------------
Thank you,
James Sirota
PMC- Apache Metron
jsirota AT apache DOT org
