According to the specs, any subclass that implements Serializable must manually implement the serialization of the parents' members. I tested this and it fails exactly as expected. The parent's members aren't serialized.
Also, JobInput is an interface.... so I would have no way of catching all of the possible implementations that could come at me. Michael On Nov 5, 2014 7:06 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" < [email protected]> wrote: > Got it, Mike. > > Hmm, how about simply creating SerializableJobSpec and > SerializableJob and SerializableJobInput and then making > them sub-class their parents and implement Serializable. > Then, use these classes in your Mesos implementation. > That seems self-contained, doesn’t change core classes, > and pretty easy, right? > > Cheers, > Chris > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Chief Architect > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 > Email: [email protected] > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Starch <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Extra Compiler Tools > > >I need to serialize a JobSpec and children (Job and JobInput) to a byte[]. > >Java can do this automatically by marking all three as Serializable. > > > >The work around is to manually serialize to a private inner struct and > >back > >out again. The inner class will have members for each member in the > >JobSpec and children. Java can the auto-serialize that without changing > >the other three. > > > >It is ugly, and essentially a reimplementation of those three > >classes....but it is entirely self-contained. > > > >Michael > >On Nov 5, 2014 6:45 PM, "Chris Mattmann" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hey Mike, > >> > >> Hmm, what’s the work around just so I know > >> what we’re trading against? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> ------------------------ > >> Chris Mattmann > >> [email protected] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Michael Starch <[email protected]> > >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 6:31 PM > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Extra Compiler Tools > >> > >> >That is basically what I did. Regardless, protobuff proves to be > >>overkill. > >> > > >> >If I mark those classes as serializable, the correct solution is 2 > >>lines > >> >of > >> >code. (protobuff was like 20). Wrote a test case, and it works > >> >perfectly. > >> > > >> >If I cannot make JobSpec Job and JonInput implement Serializable then > >>the > >> >work around is simple too. > >> > > >> >What do you think? Should I mark them as Serializable, or use a > >> >work-around. Either is a better solution than protobuff. > >> > > >> >Michael > >> >On Nov 5, 2014 4:44 PM, "Chris Mattmann" <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Mike, have you looked at this yet? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > http://techtraits.com/build%20management/maven/2011/09/09/compiling-proto > >> >>co > >> >> l-buffers-from-maven/ > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I’m going to play with it tonight and see if > >> >> I can help here. Do you have some files I can test > >> >> with? Can you attach them to JIRA or dropbox them to me > >> >> so I can scope? > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, > >> >> Chris > >> >> > >> >> ------------------------ > >> >> Chris Mattmann > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Michael Starch <[email protected]> > >> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> >> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 5:37 PM > >> >> To: <[email protected]> > >> >> Subject: Re: Extra Compiler Tools > >> >> > >> >> >Ok....time for an audible. Protoc needs to be built from source, no > >> >> >binary > >> >> >distributions available. Thus I am going to purge proto-buffers > >>from > >> >>the > >> >> >new code and be done with it. > >> >> > > >> >> >Any problem making the following classes/interfaces implement > >> >> >java.io.Serializable: > >> >> > > >> >> >JobSpec > >> >> >Job > >> >> >JobInput > >> >> > > >> >> >Doing so would allow apache and native java serialization and thus > >>we > >> >> >wouldn't need something like proto-buffers. > >> >> > > >> >> >-Michael > >> >> >Thanks Mike +1 > >> >> > > >> >> >------------------------ > >> >> >Chris Mattmann > >> >> >[email protected] > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >> >From: Michael Starch <[email protected]> > >> >> >Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> >> >Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 12:31 PM > >> >> >To: <[email protected]> > >> >> >Subject: Re: Extra Compiler Tools > >> >> > > >> >> >>Looks like you followed the same reasoning chain that I did. Yes, > >>I > >> >>came > >> >> >>to the same conclusion that ant-build was best. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>I wasn't sure how to download protoc, but you just answered > >> >>that....so I > >> >> >>think this is a great solution! > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Thanks, > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Michael > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >>On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Chris Mattmann > >> >> >><[email protected]> > >> >> >>wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Hi Mike, > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Thanks for flushing this out. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> My thoughts on the below: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >>> From: Michael Starch <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 12:12 PM > >> >> >>> To: <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> Subject: Re: Extra Compiler Tools > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >I tried this approach. The plugin requires a path to the > >>"protoc" > >> >>tool > >> >> >>>and > >> >> >>> >thus a working installation. This is what prompted the > >>discussion. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Ah - no worries, what you could do is: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> 1. only enable to plugin if -Pwith-mesos is enabled; and > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> >Running the plugin under a profile works. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Yep. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > However, not running the plugin > >> >> >>> >causes compile errors in dependant code. Excluding this code > >> >>except > >> >> >>> >within > >> >> >>> >the profile doesn't seem to work, and is considered by some to > >>be > >> >>bad > >> >> >>>form > >> >> >>> >because there is nothing inside the jar file that notes which > >> >>profiles > >> >> >>> >were > >> >> >>> >used to compile. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Got it. Suggestion here would be: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> 2. create a new module, cas-resource-mesos, and inside of that > >> >>module, > >> >> >>> take one of the following approaches, assuming the module is > >> >>activated > >> >> >>> when -Pwith-mesos is enabled: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> 2a. Maven Antrun like so (in this old example): > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1578456/integrate-protocol-buffers-in > >> >> >>>t > >> >> >>>o- > >> >> >>> maven2-build > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> (pro: more flexibility in case protoc isn¹t there; to fail on > >> >>error; to > >> >> >>> only compile if > >> >> >>> protoc is available > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> 2b. Maven protobuf plugin > >> >> >>> http://sergei-ivanov.github.io/maven-protoc-plugin/usage.html > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Here¹s how to enable a module with a profile: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > http://blog.soebes.de/blog/2013/11/09/why-is-it-bad-to-activate-slash-de > >> >> >>>a > >> >> >>>ct > >> >> >>> ive-modules-by-profiles-in-maven/ > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> It seems like that is a bad idea though, based on that > >>discussion. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> So, here¹s another option: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> 1. Inside of cas-resource (no special new module or anything > >>else) > >> >> >>> 2. include some custom Ant magic via a build.xml file and the > >>Maven > >> >> >>> AntRun plugin: > >> >> >>> 2a. test if protoc is on the system path, and if not, download > >>it, > >> >> >>>e.g., > >> >> >>> into the target directory (gets deleted on clean) > >> >> >>> 2b. call protoc and compile after 2a > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I would suggest this solution as I think it¹s the most robust and > >> >> >>>ensures > >> >> >>> we always have a cas-resource that includes mesos and compiled > >> >> >>>correctly. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Cheers, > >> >> >>> Chris > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> >Any ideas on how to continue? > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> >Michael > >> >> >>> > On Nov 5, 2014 11:04 AM, "Chris Mattmann" > >> >><[email protected]> > >> >> >>> >wrote: > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> >> Hi Mike, > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Great discussion. It would be nice if there was > >> >> >>> >> a protoc Maven plugin: > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> http://sergei-ivanov.github.io/maven-protoc-plugin/usage.html > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Looks like there is. My suggestion: > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> 1. use a Profile, something like -Pwith-mesos and > >> >> >>> >> then when activated; > >> >> >>> >> 2. call the above plugin if -Pwith-mesos is activated > >> >> >>> >> in the resource manager > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Sound good? > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Cheers, > >> >> >>> >> Chris > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> ------------------------ > >> >> >>> >> Chris Mattmann > >> >> >>> >> [email protected] > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >>> >> From: Michael Starch <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> >> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 11:46 AM > >> >> >>> >> To: <[email protected]> > >> >> >>> >> Subject: Extra Compiler Tools > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> >All, > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> >I am trying to integrate apache-mesos with our resource > >>manager. > >> >> >>> >>However, > >> >> >>> >> >mesos uses a technology called "protobuff" from Google for > >> >> >>> >> >marshaling/unmarshaling data. > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> >This requires running a tool called "protoc" to generate a > >> >>source > >> >> >>>file > >> >> >>> >>in > >> >> >>> >> >java. What is the best way to integrate this step into our > >> >>build > >> >> >>> >>process? > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> >Options I can conceive of: > >> >> >>> >> > -Check in generated java file > >> >> >>> >> > -Require "protoc" installation to build resource manager > >> >> >>> >> > -Separate extra resource package into new module > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> >None of these ideas are very clean. > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> >Any other ideas? I tried setting up a profile to only > >>compile > >> >> >>>these > >> >> >>> >> >sources when selected, but that turned out not to work. > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> >-Michael Starch > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >
