So we are potentially talking past each other. Let me re-clarify since you've interpreted "configuration" differently (I think). What I'm referring to in ZK is the "reflection of configuration" not the actual configuration. This is why I'm asking the question of how much info should be retained about a node after it goes down. Case in point zookeeper embedded: The code might take different actions if it can see that a node that had a running zookeeper did exist (and thus may return) vs a situation where there's only 2 nodes playing zookeeper roles right now and no evidence of a third ever having existed.
Also you say you can't imagine anything beyond overseer... well I could imagine that a cluster would want to say these 10 machines (but not the other 40) are allowed to have zookeeper, and I want the cluster to to have 3 node level of redundancy in zookeeper, and a new zookeeper should be created and the data replicated to it if a zk node is lost for more than 30 minutes. On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:38 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 9:05 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:19 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Left some additional comments in the google doc, extracting the key >>> point for others here so they can know if they want to read the google doc >>> commentary: >>> >> >> I'm addressing them here, inline. >> >> >>> There is presently disagreement with my proposal that the sip specify >>> both how we track configuration (which I have been referring to as >>> "capability") and runtime state ("providing"). I see the primary value of >>> having a role concept as one of organizing the code and configuration in a >>> way that is easy to understand, which is why I'm in favor of this SiP >>> overall. >>> >> >> I purposely don't want to complicate this design by allowing for >> "capability" vs "currently providing" to be represented as first class >> citizens. Besides the OVERSEER role (preferred overseer), I can't think of >> concrete scenarios where such a concept could be applicable, and hence I >> don't want to get ahead of myself in trying to address how to solve that. >> Since the current proposal for dealing with roles is flexible and generic >> enough, I don't think adding such extensions would be a problem. However, I >> don't want to go down that rabbithole at this point in time. >> >> >> >>> >>> If you don't want to tackle implementing the runtime state bit I'm ok >>> with that as long as we have a clear plan in the SIP of how this type of >>> information should be organized in the future. >>> The structure proposed in the SIP for information in zk seems to map >>> more clearly to runtime state than configuration, and seems like it would >>> inhibit a natural representation of such. >>> >> >> The structure proposed allows for role specific configurations (if >> needed). It doesn't provide for node specific configuration in ZK, since >> all node properties should come from either solr.xml or sysprops. At >> present, I don't think we ever have node specific info *configuration* >> in ZK in any part of Solr, and I think we shouldn't go that route here. >> > > Correction: "At present, I don't think we ever have node specific > *configuration* in ZK in any part of Solr, and I think we shouldn't go > that route here." > > >> >> >>> >>> Finally the structure in the SIP for zk information doesn't specify if >>> some of the nodes are ephemeral, and reliable for a "current" list or if >>> they are persistent over time. I feel like we may not yet have a plan for >>> how much information about nodes (n general) should be retained while a >>> node is down, which maybe needs to underlie this design. >>> >> >> All the node names under the roles znodes are ephemeral. Added this to >> the document (confluence and gdoc both). >> >> >>> >>> -Gus >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 10:34 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I've synced back all changes to confluence. Both represent the same >>>> document as of now. >>>> Please review and suggest if there are any outstanding concerns. Thanks >>>> for all the feedback. >>>> >>>> I wish to proceed with the implementation based on lazy consensus again. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:38 PM Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I should clarify, that my -1 was specifically about reaching lazy >>>>> consensus and not about that proposal itself. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> > -1, I would like to see a proposal on list where it will be >>>>>> permanently available >>>>>> >>>>>> It will be available in the confluence document (as it currently is). >>>>>> The google docs is just for collecting temporary feedback, thanks to easy >>>>>> inline commenting capability. We promised to consolidate feedback in the >>>>>> gdoc and sync back to the SIP document in confluence. This is reasonable >>>>>> enough expectations, and shouldn't be a worry enough for a -1. >>>>>> >>>>>> As of right now, while trying to address some concerns, some edits >>>>>> have been made in gdocs by Noble that we'll sync back into confluence; so >>>>>> that's the only divergence. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:09 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> > -1, I would like to see a proposal on list where it will be >>>>>>> permanently available >>>>>>> > in the archives instead of being directed to a Google doc which >>>>>>> can be edited at any point in time. >>>>>>> > This has been an incredibly difficult proposal to keep track of. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This entire SIP process has been incredibly difficult to coordinate. >>>>>>> The idea of doing this on a mail thread was a terrible one. There's no >>>>>>> archive available publicly for this list that doesn't break the >>>>>>> threading >>>>>>> functionality (I guess someone among us is using some funky mail client >>>>>>> that's messing with Pony Mail). JIRA for discussion would've been much >>>>>>> better. I suppose JIRA used to have threaded discussions once upon a >>>>>>> time, >>>>>>> that would've been very handy here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:07 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Okay, sure, I'll rescind my assertion about having reached a lazy >>>>>>>> consensus. I'll work through all the recent comments and feedback. >>>>>>>> I think at the last moment, there was an edit by Noble to the >>>>>>>> Google Doc that hasn't made it into the SIP document, and I'll review >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> change, the recent comments and get back here tomorrow. Other than that >>>>>>>> last moment change, the SIP document is up to date. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 8:24 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also, I don't know that it's defined anywhere, but I feel that >>>>>>>>> declaring lazy consensus on a SIP in less than a week is rushing >>>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>>> Some folks won't have the flexibility to address things daily and >>>>>>>>> I've been >>>>>>>>> uncomfortably pulled away from paid work trying to keep up with this >>>>>>>>> as is. >>>>>>>>> Lazy consensus should include at least one weekend (IMHO) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:49 AM Gus Heck <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IMHO two things must happen before lazy consensus wait period can >>>>>>>>>> begin: >>>>>>>>>> 1) The wiki must be updated to reflect the results of >>>>>>>>>> discussion in the google doc. >>>>>>>>>> 2) The fact that the wiki has been updated, and that you think >>>>>>>>>> the discussion is at an end must be posted here, preferably with a >>>>>>>>>> summary >>>>>>>>>> on the list. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also the google doc has not been notifying me of >>>>>>>>>> changes/responses. So a note here when you've responded and some >>>>>>>>>> time to >>>>>>>>>> respond before the above steps are taken would be appreciated. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Gus >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:40 AM Mike Drob <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -1, I would like to see a proposal on list where it will be >>>>>>>>>>> permanently available in the archives instead of being directed to >>>>>>>>>>> a Google >>>>>>>>>>> doc which can be edited at any point in time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This has been an incredibly difficult proposal to keep track of. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 6:09 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This proposal has passed with lazy consensus. We can proceed to >>>>>>>>>>>> the implementation phase. >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone for feedback, esp. Gus for the patience. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 2:24 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for adding that :) and Thanks to Nobel for translating >>>>>>>>>>>>> my ravings :). Sorry about the acronym. Amusingly I had to look >>>>>>>>>>>>> up gish >>>>>>>>>>>>> gallop to understand what you meant :) I can assure you that I >>>>>>>>>>>>> will never >>>>>>>>>>>>> gish gallop you or anyone on the list, and I find such techniques >>>>>>>>>>>>> repugnant. If I'm not making sense, I'm likely covering ground >>>>>>>>>>>>> too fast, >>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping things that are in my head but not yours, expressing too >>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>> tangents (when I start nesting parentheses this is (usually) a >>>>>>>>>>>>> sign I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>> wandering too much), or I am simply mistaken about something. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Always feel >>>>>>>>>>>>> free to ask me to explain! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Gus >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 12:17 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added both your suggestions to Google Docs for inline >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commenting and the SIP document at confluence. Thanks for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:28 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll add the lifecycle details to the document as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 9:08 am Ishan Chattopadhyaya, < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Gus, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing it up again. Initially, I wasn't clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you meant and mistook them for gish gallop. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These were the things I am/was confused about (Noble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained it to me what you mean): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - adherence to DRY via zk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - runtime config info should come from zk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - add dynamic features >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - same interaction patterns for consulting config values. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, after Noble's help, I think I understand your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - DRY = Don't Repeat Yourself ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - You're suggesting that we have a standard way to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role specific configurations (in ZK), so that a new role added >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access the configurations in a standard way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a very good suggestion, and makes complete sense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. This was definitely a missing piece! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a proposal to address that (adding it to Google >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Docs: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hijvM1WX9u2TOUdLEkFYVCofLeJlv2MRZqe-ncobJVw/edit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Per Role ZNode >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Every role's ZNode to hold configuration data (this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the key addition that you're asking for, IIUC) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Children of role ZNodes to be list of ephemeral solr >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can iterate over this on the Google Docs (internal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation ZK section) with inline commenting if we need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know how that sounds. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ishan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 4:49 AM Gus Heck < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is difficult to track everything in this thread for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure. Specifically, I don't feel my email of Wed, Nov 17, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7:43 PM (EST) has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been addressed or responded to except for one difference of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan on whether or not we should prohibit the notion of any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role ever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing at runtime. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I made a specific proposal for an addition to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sip, regarding start up lifecycle and adherence to DRY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via zk, in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (probably not clearly expressed) hope that we can move to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application principle that at runtime config info should come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from zk. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we follow such a principle, we will always be in a position >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to add dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features without significant rework, and all code could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hopefully reuse the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same interaction patterns for consulting config values. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither item is addressed in the SIP currently. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also I had put that out there as a single item so it could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be focused on (simplifying the discussion I hope), and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion proceeds, I may have other follow on items. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Gus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 8:45 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Nov, 2021, 7:03 pm Ilan Ginzburg, < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the request here for everybody to express again the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already expressed in this email thread and not addressed? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the expectation now (after we've expressed our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intention to reach a lazy consensus) is that if someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to block this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SIP from adoption, then to put forward the objections. Sort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of like a veto. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest instead the authors review the thread, match >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns with how the concern was addressed (or not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addressed) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide an exhaustive list. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've summarized most of the discussion in the SIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document. If you feel I could do a better job with it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please help me with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas of improvement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proposal in its current form (data and overseer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roles) doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer much that can't be reasonably achieved by other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means. I'd find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much more value in making sure what is done now is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solid foundation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, I understand your perspective. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your feedback. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:24 PM Noble Paul < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > After so many back and forth mails, I just can't say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who has an outstanding concern and if they are already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addressed or not. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the Google doc would help us get clarity on that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please take a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment to give your inputs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 9:18 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Apologies, the vote hasn't passed formally and I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under some confusion on the process. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I'd like to proceed with a lazy consensus and proceed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the implementation phase now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> However, I would appreciate it if someone wants to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bring out any outstanding concerns about the SIP document. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> To facilitate in-line comments, here's a temporary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Docs version of this document. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hijvM1WX9u2TOUdLEkFYVCofLeJlv2MRZqe-ncobJVw/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> (I shall copy changes back to confluence eventually) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks and apologies again regarding the confusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the voting, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Ishan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:50 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> The SIP passed the voting phase. Thanks for all for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the feedback and insights. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Looking forward to your collaboration and reviews as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we implement this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:42 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > It's fine if we don't provide any ability for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime modification of roles at this time but I'm leery of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precluding it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> In future, the necessity for such a facility can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictate our course of action. We cannot lay down rules cast >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in stone for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality that we can't foresee yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:40 PM Ishan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chattopadhyaya <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Thanks Jan, I added both those points to the SIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document in the Notes section. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 7:18 PM Jan Høydahl < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> 18. nov. 2021 kl. 01:43 skrev Gus Heck < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Roles will not be checked by loading config >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from disk or caching disk config in memory. (zk ONLY source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> It sounds a bit backward for a local node to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first parse solr.node.roles, determine its local set of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roles, then publish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to Zookeeper, and then read back its own roles from ZK. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Code that only needs to determine "Do I have the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> XXX role?" or find out "What roles do I have" should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to fetch the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (static) roles from some roles utility class without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consulting ZK. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Code that needs to check what nodes have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain role (such as placement) would obviously need ot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consult ZK. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps the SIP should also state some Non-goals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or assertions such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> * Roles are static and immutable (also in zk) for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the entire life cycle of a node >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> I also think we should state that the bar for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding new roles should be high so it is not abused as any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other tag or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> label for any tiny feature. It should be reserved for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may benefit from a dedicated set of nodes. That may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear already, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you never know... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Jan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>>>>>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>>>>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>> >> -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) http://www.the111shift.com (play)
