I added a developer-doc draft for modules and packages in https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/531 (HTML preview <https://github.com/apache/solr/blob/7eeaba318a79ed62678ab3ac5f1d403733d88e5f/dev-docs/plugins-modules-packages.adoc>). Let me know if it is useful.
Jan > 14. jan. 2022 kl. 18:13 skrev David Smiley <[email protected]>: > > Fair points. I might take a stab at this on the weekend to see. > > I propose no change to the SOLR_HOME detection logic, which will naturally > end up being SOLR_INSTALL/server/solr (where solr.xml is). Docker stuff > won't need to set it / play games as it does now. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hmm, yea it's always been a bit odd how SOLR_HOME does not point to where you > untared solr, i.e. /opt/solr, like for every other software out there. So I > support such a change. > Will SOLR_VAR be exactly what the old SOLR_HOME was, i.e. /var/solr/data, or > will it point to /var/solr? It's also a bit odd how we don't (I think) have a > var pointing to /var/solr as laid out by the install script and in Dockerfile. > > Such a change will have to happen either in 9.0 or 10.0. Sounds a tad too > large for 9.0, since it's not even started. But a JIRA is a good start. > Perhaps it is easier than we imagine, and suddenly someone have put up a PR? > :) > > I did not quite get where you wanted the "new" SOLR_HOME to point to. I think > if we should change anything, it should point to the root of the Solr > installation? > > Jan > >> 14. jan. 2022 kl. 14:47 skrev David Smiley <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> I believe the root cause here is fixed by my "Immutable Infrastructure" >> adherence proposal relating to a new SOLR_VAR: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/3vvld3xnndtthtl7sfgdbsgkbtpm55b0 >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/3vvld3xnndtthtl7sfgdbsgkbtpm55b0> >> Thus SOLR_HOME stays with the solr installation; mutable data like the >> indexes go in a new SOLR_VAR -- ultimately the same path to the data that >> exists today. But since SOLR_HOME stays with Solr, so does the lib and thus >> it's easy to mount in some other path or whatever. >> >> I didn't create a JIRA issue... I've been extremely busy. But before I do, >> WDYT about this? >> >> ~ David Smiley >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> >> >> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 4:20 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Yep, have also been using SOLR_HOME/lib for years. But for a recent client, >> they needed to package up 2-3 plugin jars into the docker image, so then we >> tried $SOLR_HOME/lib, but since /var/solr/data is defined as a Docker volume >> in our Dockerfile, it won't help copying libs in that location in custom >> Dockerfile, since at runtime the volume location will be used instead, where >> some old jars would be used instead. So we added the libs to some >> /opt/foo/lib folder, and made an init-script in >> "/docker-entrypoint-initdb.d/" that on container startup would do a "rm >> /var/solr/data/lib/*.jar && cp /opt/foo/lib/*.jar /var/solr/data/lib/", i.e. >> clean up existing jars from the docker-host's existing volume and copy in >> the fresh plugin jars from the newest image. Phew. And the same with >> solr.xml initialization... >> >> Of course we could have used export SOLR_OPTS=$SOLR_OPTS >> -Dsolr.sharedLib=/opt/foo/lib or something, but it is still not super easy. >> So that's what the new standard location tries to solve - you load code from >> a stable path, not together with your data. >> >> Jan >> >>> 13. jan. 2022 kl. 19:04 skrev David Smiley <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>> >>> +1 to your phasing. >>> >>> Another minor improvement for users is if we pre-add $SOLR_TIP/lib to the >>> classloader >>> I'll create a JIRA :) >>> >>> SOLR-HOME/lib is already supported -- >>> https://nightlies.apache.org/solr/draft-guides/solr-reference-guide-main/libs.html >>> >>> <https://nightlies.apache.org/solr/draft-guides/solr-reference-guide-main/libs.html> >>> This is what I recommend people use in general. >>> >>> ~ David Smiley >>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:59 AM Houston Putman <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> It could very well be worth shipping two docker images in the meantime. >>> Or maybe a zip of each module could be a separate artifact that is >>> published? I'm not sure what freedoms we have to do this in the ASF. >>> >>> I think for 9.0 we could realistically shoot for 2 binary releases and 2 >>> docker images, slim (without the modules) and full-featured (with the >>> modules), having the full-featured be the default. >>> >>> Starting in the 9.x line, we could start packaging the modules as separate >>> binary artifacts for the solr release. Then in 10.x we can make the slim >>> release be the default (still having the fat tgz available as well with as >>> solr-extended-10.0.0.tgz or something like that). >>> >>> Phase 1. (9.0): Modularize Solr by extracting obvious low hanging fruits >>> plugins into contribs/modules. Make it super easy to launch solr wil any of >>> these on class-path (SOLR-15914 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15914>). >>> Phase 2 (9.x): Evolve package manager and make it possible to optionally >>> install the modules as 1st party packages instead (still fat distro) >>> Pase 3: (10.0?): Extract even more features as modules, and publish all >>> modules as separate delivery artifacts on DLCDN >>> >>> I really like this plan. I agree for 9.x we really don't have an option, >>> but to keep publishing the fat tgz as the default. Even in 10.x I think we >>> want to offer both a full-featured download and a slim download, but with >>> first-part-packages we can make slim the "default". >>> >>> Another minor improvement for users is if we pre-add $SOLR_TIP/lib to the >>> classloader >>> I'll create a JIRA :) >>> >>> Yes please. That would be a lovely improvement! People bend-over-backward >>> currently to add custom libs. >>> >>> - Houston >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 8:09 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Another minor improvement for users is if we pre-add $SOLR_TIP/lib to the >>> classloader, similar to what we have with $SOLR_HOME/lib today. The >>> disadvantage of $SOLR_HOME/lib is that it can be anywhere, perhaps on a >>> Docker volume or a different disk, so you cannot e.g make a Dockerfile like >>> >>> FROM solr:9.0 >>> ADD foo.jar /var/solr/data/lib/foo.jar >>> >>> ...since /var/solr/data is a volume and will resolve to the volume >>> partition of the user, not the content from the image. So if we instead >>> allow users to do >>> >>> FROM solr:9.0 >>> ADD foo.jar /opt/solr/lib/ >>> >>> That is both logical and beautiful, and would always work. >>> >>> I'll create a JIRA :) >>> >>> Jan >>> >>>> 13. jan. 2022 kl. 13:57 skrev Jan Høydahl <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>>> >>>> There is not a lack of vision for future local and remote package >>>> repositories, but the story is that package mgmt development has stalled, >>>> and is out of reach for 1st party pkgs in the 9.0.0 timeframe. >>>> >>>> So we have to think progress over perfection - once again >>>> >>>> Phase 1. (9.0): Modularize Solr by extracting obvious low hanging fruits >>>> plugins into contribs/modules. Make it super easy to launch solr wil any >>>> of these on class-path (SOLR-15914 >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15914>). >>>> Phase 2 (9.x): Evolve package manager and make it possible to optionally >>>> install the modules as 1st party packages instead (still fat distro) >>>> Pase 3: (10.0?): Extract even more features as modules, and publish all >>>> modules as separate delivery artifacts on DLCDN >>>> >>>> Regarding phase 2 in 9.x. We cannot really extract a feature into a module >>>> in e.g. 9.1 so users upgrading from 9.0 will get NoClassFoundException. >>>> That breaks back-compat. But perhaps we could continue modularization >>>> efforts in 9.x if we make sure that all new modules extracted in a minor >>>> release are automatically added to the classloader? Then the classes will >>>> disappear from solr-core.jar so would possibly break someone's custom >>>> embedded usecase, but 99% of users would be unaffected. Wdyt? >>>> >>>> In any case, I think for 9.x the realistic route is to keep our fat tgz, >>>> but make it slimmer by removing redundancy and prune down on the number of >>>> overlapping dependencies. That can get us a long way. >>>> >>>> Jan >>>> >>>>> 13. jan. 2022 kl. 03:15 skrev David Smiley <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>>>> >>>>> Shawn: >>>>> * RE redundancies of stuff in /dist/, see >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15916 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15916> >>>>> * RE "contrib" vs "module" vs "package", see: >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15917 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15917> >>>>> * RE not shipping these extras with the Solr distribution, see: "slim >>>>> distro" mention in the document "Solr first party packages" >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n7gB2JAdZhlJKFrCd4Txcw4HDkdk7hlULyAZBS-wXrE/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n7gB2JAdZhlJKFrCd4Txcw4HDkdk7hlULyAZBS-wXrE/edit?usp=sharing> >>>>> >>>>> It could very well be worth shipping two docker images in the meantime. >>>>> Or maybe a zip of each module could be a separate artifact that is >>>>> published? I'm not sure what freedoms we have to do this in the ASF. >>>>> >>>>> ~ David Smiley >>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 8:21 PM Shawn Heisey <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> On 1/12/2022 8:31 AM, Jan Høydahl wrote: >>>>> > I think there are lots of pieces of code in solr-core that can easily >>>>> > be extracted the same way. >>>>> > Some perhaps even for 9.0.0, as it slims down the core and reduces >>>>> > attack surface for most users as well. >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be really awesome if we had a core download that only >>>>> included basic functionality, and all the other fancy things that Solr >>>>> does now out of the box (as well as those that are contrib) could be >>>>> added after download via package scripting or just additional downloads. >>>>> >>>>> The size of solr-8.11.1.tgz is 207MiB, or 218076598 bytes. The .zip >>>>> version is slightly larger. 8.0.0 was 163MiB, 7.0.0 was 142MiBm, 6.0.0 >>>>> was 131MiB, and 1.4.1 was 53.7MiB. I think it's insane that the >>>>> download is so big ... and a lot of what makes it big are things that >>>>> the vast majority of our users will never use. >>>>> >>>>> Large reductions in the overall size of the main download would be >>>>> possible by putting hadoop, calcite, some of the really large lucene >>>>> analysis components, and the contrib stuff into packages. The >>>>> extraction contrib alone is 43.5MiB compressed in zip format. >>>>> >>>>> I would suggest moving zookeeper and its dependencies as well, but I >>>>> think we probably want SolrCloud to be part of base functionality. >>>>> >>>>> Some of the large jars are included for what are probably insignificant >>>>> usages, and I wonder if that functionality could be replaced by newer >>>>> native functions available in Java 8 and later. I am eyeballing things >>>>> like guava and the commons-* jars here, but I am sure there are other >>>>> things in this category. I'd like to eliminate as many dependencies as >>>>> we can. >>>>> >>>>> Extracting some things from the solr-core jar into other jars sounds >>>>> like a really awesome idea. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the solr-core jar should be in the dist directory. It's >>>>> useless by itself, because it will still have a LOT of dependencies even >>>>> if we shrink it. And there are likely other things in the dist >>>>> directory that fall into that category. The test framework and its >>>>> dependencies are a good candidate for removal. >>>>> >>>>> By removing some of the low-hanging fruit that I am SURE isn't needed >>>>> for base binary functionality on the 8.11.1 download, I was able to end >>>>> up with a .zip file sized in at 60.4MiB, and I am sure at least a little >>>>> bit of further reduction is possible if we can fully map out >>>>> dependencies. I think we can leverage gradle to provide some dependency >>>>> info. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly how to organize the code repo to create divided artifacts is >>>>> something that we would need to think about. My initial idea is >>>>> changing "contrib" to "package" and then making some new directories >>>>> under package. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Shawn >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
