Chris, Et Al. The solution write-up can be found here. Turns out it isn't too ugly....just has a lot of duplication with the classes it is wrapping.
https://reviews.apache.org/r/27773/ Enjoy, -Michael On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Michael Starch <[email protected]> wrote: > Sound fine, expect to see this on review board when I get it done and > passing my test. > > Michael > On Nov 7, 2014 9:44 AM, "Chris Mattmann" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yep I’d like to see the non changing >> core structs version, in a patch to >> evaluate it. You said you know how, so let’s see it >> and then go from there. We can reserve 0.9 to >> consider changing structs if the code becomes >> too unwieldily to maintain. >> >> Good? >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> ------------------------ >> Chris Mattmann >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Starch <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Friday, November 7, 2014 at 9:21 AM >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Extra Compiler Tools >> >> >Chris, >> > >> >Did you ever come to a conclusion on this? >> > >> >-Michael >> > >> >On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Chris Mattmann <[email protected] >> > >> >wrote: >> > >> >> OK, let me think about this tonight. >> >> Maybe we can figure this out tomorrow, >> >> I won’t hold this up longer than that. >> >> >> >> ------------------------ >> >> Chris Mattmann >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Michael Starch <[email protected]> >> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> >> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 8:23 PM >> >> To: <[email protected]> >> >> Subject: Re: Extra Compiler Tools >> >> >> >> >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 >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
