Re: Proton website issues
Thank you and Robbie for taking care of this. Gordon, I have now linked your shinny tutorial! Thanks again. Rajith On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 05/26/2015 06:49 PM, Richard Li wrote: > >> Yes. Thanks! >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Robbie Gemmell > > >> wrote: >> >> Just to check, did you mean from this page? >>> >>> >>> http://qpid.apache.org/releases/qpid-proton-0.9.1/proton/python/examples/index.html >>> >>> Its the only one I saw making such a link. The link for >>> helloworld_direct.py was similarly linking to a .html that didnt >>> exist. I updated them both to remove the .html at the end since all >>> the others apper to all be linking to .py files. Apologies if that >>> wasnt the intent Gordon :) >>> >>> Robbie >>> >>> On 26 May 2015 at 17:58, Richard Li wrote: >>> >>> http://qpid.apache.org/releases/qpid-proton-0.9.1/proton/python/examples/helloworld.py.html >>> gives a 404. >>> > Sorry! My mistake! I had started by copying the existing examples, then > went to see whether the pygmentizing was done by the rendering stuff > automatically, then got distracted and forgot what I had been doing. > > I have now uploaded pygmentized examples and corrected all the links to > point to those. > > Thanks to Richard for pointing out my error and thanks to Robbie for > fixing things up for me in the meantime! > >
Proton website issues
Hi All, We have some broken links in the proton website. The most crucial being "Installing Qpid Proton". I was trying to link to this from my vert.x documentation and found this not working. It would be nice to have the documentation for Gordon's work hosted somewhere as well. Regards, Rajith
Re: [Proton-J] Improving the engine impl.
Sure, just wanted to pose the question to what your thoughts were. Having said that, this maybe one of the areas to look at after the codec work is done. Another area is the FrameParser and FrameWrite :p ... but one thing at a time. Regards, Rajith On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If you look at the engine impl, you would see TransportLink and a > LinkImpl > > (ditto for Session, Delivery etc..) > > > > 1. Is this separation necessary? Could we not collapse the two into one? > > > > 2. The extra copying of data btw the two layers could possibly be a > > performance issue. > > > > Logically it is good to keep them distinct since the TransportLink state is > only valid when the Link is bound to a connection and needs to be > cleared/reinitialized on unbind/rebind. I doubt there is much overhead to > it so I'd leave it be for now. > > --Rafael >
[Proton-J] Improving the engine impl.
If you look at the engine impl, you would see TransportLink and a LinkImpl (ditto for Session, Delivery etc..) 1. Is this separation necessary? Could we not collapse the two into one? 2. The extra copying of data btw the two layers could possibly be a performance issue. Regards, Rajith
[Proton-J] Removing unused methods in the Message interface
This is a courtesy notice that I will be removing the following methods from the Proton Message interface in 48 hrs unless I hear any objections. I believe Robbie has already mentioned this in the past. Rajith Object save(); String toAMQPFormat(Object value); Object parseAMQPFormat(String value); void setMessageFormat(MessageFormat format); MessageFormat getMessageFormat(); void clear(); MessageError getError();
Re: 0.10 release time frame?
It appears the consensus is to have a release fairly soon. I want be able to get the codec work in time for the 0.10 release. These changes do have an impact on Robbies test code as some impl classes are used directly. Given the magnitude of the changes and the impact it has on the code base and related projects, I'm of the opinion that it's best to aim to land this on the trunk soon after the 0.10 release. That will give us enough time to test and weed out any bugs for the 0.11 release. Rajith On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Ken Giusti wrote: > +1 > > I'd like to see the Python3 changes land on master soon after we cut a > release of SASL. Give py3 some time to shake out the bugs. > > - Original Message - > > From: "Rafael Schloming" > > To: proton@qpid.apache.org > > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:37:01 PM > > Subject: Re: 0.10 release time frame? > > > > I'd like to see one fairly soon. I'm currently working through a few > > sasl-related interop issues between proton-c and proton-j, but once that > is > > done and gordon's map fix lands, I think we would be in decent shape to > put > > out a 0.10 in short order. > > > > --Rafael > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm interested in knowing the timelines the community has in mind for > the > > > 0.10 release. > > > > > > A tentative date for alpha and beta cycles would be helpful in > planning the > > > work tasks and vacation time. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > -- > -K >
0.10 release time frame?
I'm interested in knowing the timelines the community has in mind for the 0.10 release. A tentative date for alpha and beta cycles would be helpful in planning the work tasks and vacation time. Regards, Rajith
Re: GitHub integration tweaks
This is awesome! Good job. Rajith On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm sure some of you already noticed me spamming the JIRA projects and > mailing lists already when testing this, but just incase you didnt or > wondered what I was doing... > > I asked infra via [1] and [2] to enable/fix some of the extra GitHub > integration bits for our four GitHub mirrors (the qpid and dispatch > git-svn mirrors, and the qpid-proton and qpid-jms git mirrors). The > summary is: > > - Pull Requests opened at GitHub will be emailed to the dev@ or > proton@ lists, and a comment placed on any JIRA mentioned in the > title. > - Commenting on the PR at GitHub will result in the same. > - Replying to the emails on the mailing list will add a comment on the PR. > > Robbie > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9073 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9208 >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
> Most of the things I'd consider most awkward about about the current > codebase have little to do with the Message, but rather all the stuff > you need before you get that far. > > Changing or improving Message or any of the public API's is not the focus for me. But while working on the type handling and codec stuff, I was also looking closely at how some of these "types" are used throughout the codebase and message handling was one such area. Given that I found the set method in the Message interface a bit of a nuisance to use, and I had to use it fairly often, I took the opportunity to start a discussion to see if an improvement could be made. > Mostly, I find other areas being much more awkard, like many of the > types required to set up and operate connections, sessions, links etc > being in a bunch of different packages that arent as obvious as they > could be, and perhaps even interfaces and implementations with the > same name (e.g Source). Yep this has been noted and mentioned by several folks, and an attempt has been made to improve this area. I've got quite a large chuck on work sitting on my local that I will post to my branch soon. > I might have added a body specific interface > for set/getBody rather than just using the Section interface, since > that permits the other non-body sections. > > +1 > > > If I want to send a String or a Map, I have to wrap it with an AMQP type > > first. Which is awkward at best. > > > > As I said, I can definitely see there also being merit in having an > API that you set/get simple 'body objects' such as String with. I just > dont think it should be the only way as outlined, particularly since > it hasnt been from the start. > > I think setBody(Object) and Object getBody() is less restrictive than the current approach. It will certainly allow a user to pass an Object, Data or an AmqpSequence. The impl could simply return an Object if it's an amqp-value and Data or AmqpSequence if it's data or sequence. Even with the current approach you still need to use the instanceof operator to figure out the "type". So no difference there but slightly more user friendly. But the important thing to note here is that the current approach simply "restricts" to an argument of type Section, which I think is less user friendly. We don't need to remove the existing get/set methods. I have no problem leaving them there and it will save some compile errors. But if we add get/set Object it will certainly make them redundant. Just saying :) Would you agree? > > > > >> Doing this would simply some use cases, but also further restrict the > >> ability to send the bodies you want or know what you really received, > >> e.g is a List an AmqpvValue+List or an AmqpSequence? > > > > > > From a typical application programmers perspective, a List wrapped in an > > AmqpValue or an AmqpSequence makes little difference. > > It makes a fairly big difference if you e.g want to send sequences. > Looking at the spec. You can send only a single AmqpValue section but one or more AmqpSequence or Data sections. Unfortunately the current impl doesn't allow more than one sequence or data section to be sent which kills that advantage. We should implement that. I don't think I advocated anywhere about limiting what can be sent via the Message abstraction. I guess by getting into a discussion about why a user would care whether a single list is sent as a sequence or a value object, I gave the wrong impression that we should somehow not allow sending it as a sequence. I guess thats where you got the impression that I'm trying to limit what can or cannot be sent. Apologies for causing any confusion there. My point was that for most cases an average user would not care about the underlying AMQP type and wouldn't care about whether a single list or a byte[] is sent as an amqp-value vs sequence/data. For those that care they can simply wrap it with the AmqpSequence or Data. > > What the user cares about is that it's a List, not the underlying AMQP > type. > > Unless I have missed some subtlety, I don't see much of a benefit in > > figuring out what the underlying AMQP type is. > > If they care about that level of detail, then perhaps they are working at > > the wrong level of granularity. > > They should instead use the codec API for that. > > > > Robbie, can you please give us a use case to further explain your point? > > > > I'm mainly getting at that by making the proposed change, we would be > saying that the Message API probably wont actually support sending > lots of varieties of AMQP message content, or perhaps not receiving > them. Sequences allow you to do things that value+list do not, and > data allows you to do things that value+binary do not (I can only > presume thats part of the reason they both exist?). The JMS mapping > for example uses sequences and data to allow for things that wouldnt > be possible using value+list or value+binary. Even if it didnt use > them as a matter of
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > On 19 February 2015 at 04:22, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Setting the message body for an o.a.q.proton.message.Message is slightly > >> awkward. > >> You have to create a AmqpValue. AmqpSequence or a Data object that > >> encapsulates the underlying data type. > >> > >> Given that one of our goals is to expose an API that works with standard > >> Java types instead of AMQP defined types, I suggest we simply use Object > >> for setBody and getBody methods. > >> The implementation can then handle the conversion back and forth > >> underneath. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > > > > Makes sense to me. > > > > --Rafael > > Adding additional functionality to set/get a 'body object' like this > certainly might be useful in cases, but I dont think it should be the > only way. I also wouldnt change the existing methods to do this unless > the idea is to let you continue setting/getting the existing Section > objects unchanged (it would obviously likely break all existing user > code sending payloads otherwise). I can see that being easy enough for > the setter as it works now, though I dont see how it could work for > the getter without adding a control toggle. > The Message interface is part of the public API and I understand the impact on existing code out there. **I don't plan to remove anything or even change any existing public API. At least not for the upcoming release.** So far I have sketched out a parallel API for certain pieces of the public API. Message handling is one of them. What I would like to have is a discussion based on that, as it appears the existing API had little discussion or scrutiny. An API should be easy to use and work with standard Java types as much as possible. The existing API is awkward to use in that respect. If I want to send a String or a Map, I have to wrap it with an AMQP type first. Which is awkward at best. > Doing this would simply some use cases, but also further restrict the > ability to send the bodies you want or know what you really received, > e.g is a List an AmqpvValue+List or an AmqpSequence? >From a typical application programmers perspective, a List wrapped in an AmqpValue or an AmqpSequence makes little difference. What the user cares about is that it's a List, not the underlying AMQP type. Unless I have missed some subtlety, I don't see much of a benefit in figuring out what the underlying AMQP type is. If they care about that level of detail, then perhaps they are working at the wrong level of granularity. They should instead use the codec API for that. Robbie, can you please give us a use case to further explain your point? > Is > an AmqpValue+Binary, or is it a Data? Again the same question. For 99% of the use cases out there, the user will only care about the underlying byte[]. Could you pls let us know a use case where such a distinction is useful ? > There is then things like how to > support e.g multiple Data and AmqpSequence sections (something it > should already support but doesnt). > > Yea I noticed this was missing. More thoughts on that later. > Robbie >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
Setting the message body for an o.a.q.proton.message.Message is slightly awkward. You have to create a AmqpValue. AmqpSequence or a Data object that encapsulates the underlying data type. Given that one of our goals is to expose an API that works with standard Java types instead of AMQP defined types, I suggest we simply use Object for setBody and getBody methods. The implementation can then handle the conversion back and forth underneath. What do you think? On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > Overall I think this is a good direction. I made a bunch of more detailed > comments on the patch. > > --Rafael > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Rafi, further to our discussion I have posted a patch to illustrate the >> approach we plan to take. >> This should enable me to make progress until you get a chance to make >> further changes on the Decoder side. >> >> Regards, >> >> Rajith >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < >> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> More questions. >>> >>> For all the maps we return should we restrict them to >>> or should it be ? >>> Technically one could use a Number (int, long) etc as a key.. >>> >>> Any opinion here? ;) >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Rafael Schloming >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < >>>> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Rafi could u pls answer the two questions I had in the code? >>>>> >>>>> 1. Your uint method only takes an int .. shouldn't it take a long? >>>>> Bcos it could contain a value larger than a java int? >>>>> >>>> >>>> To be honest I don't quite remember for sure, but I think it will do >>>> the two's complement and put it on the wire as a proper unsigned value. In >>>> other words I think it's just using the int type as a convenient/efficient >>>> way to pass around 4 bytes. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. What should I use for boolean? there is no getBoolean .. or an >>>>> equivalent method >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think you might need to add this. I probably just omitted it. >>>> >>>> --Rafael >>>> >>> >>> >> >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
Rafi, further to our discussion I have posted a patch to illustrate the approach we plan to take. This should enable me to make progress until you get a chance to make further changes on the Decoder side. Regards, Rajith On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > More questions. > > For all the maps we return should we restrict them to or > should it be ? > Technically one could use a Number (int, long) etc as a key.. > > Any opinion here? ;) > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Rafael Schloming > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < >> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Rafi could u pls answer the two questions I had in the code? >>> >>> 1. Your uint method only takes an int .. shouldn't it take a long? Bcos >>> it could contain a value larger than a java int? >>> >> >> To be honest I don't quite remember for sure, but I think it will do the >> two's complement and put it on the wire as a proper unsigned value. In >> other words I think it's just using the int type as a convenient/efficient >> way to pass around 4 bytes. >> >> >>> >>> 2. What should I use for boolean? there is no getBoolean .. or an >>> equivalent method >>> >> >> I think you might need to add this. I probably just omitted it. >> >> --Rafael >> > >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
More questions. For all the maps we return should we restrict them to or should it be ? Technically one could use a Number (int, long) etc as a key.. Any opinion here? ;) On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Rafi could u pls answer the two questions I had in the code? >> >> 1. Your uint method only takes an int .. shouldn't it take a long? Bcos >> it could contain a value larger than a java int? >> > > To be honest I don't quite remember for sure, but I think it will do the > two's complement and put it on the wire as a proper unsigned value. In > other words I think it's just using the int type as a convenient/efficient > way to pass around 4 bytes. > > >> >> 2. What should I use for boolean? there is no getBoolean .. or an >> equivalent method >> > > I think you might need to add this. I probably just omitted it. > > --Rafael >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
Rafi could u pls answer the two questions I had in the code? 1. Your uint method only takes an int .. shouldn't it take a long? Bcos it could contain a value larger than a java int? 2. What should I use for boolean? there is no getBoolean .. or an equivalent method Regards, Rajith On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Rafael Schloming > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < >> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Rafi, >> > >> > I just checked in some skeleton code to explore a particular approach. >> > It avoids the intermediate objects we have in proton now (Ex >> FlowType.java) >> > Instead the Flow class is directly used by the encoding/decoding layer. >> > >> > The Flow class uses java types as opposed to AMQP specific types, which >> > will address one of your main concerns. >> > >> > The code is checked into the "rajith-codec" branch. >> > The classes to look at >> > Flow.java in the o/a/q/p/transport2 package >> > TransportTypesEncoder and TransportTypesDecoder in o/a/q/p/codec2 >> package. >> > >> > I've also put some question marks in the code .. pls answer them. >> > But more importantly pls provide feedback on the direction taken. >> > >> > I'm keen to settle down on the direction/approach first and then will >> start >> > implementing the rest. >> > >> >> It looks like a good start from what I saw from the commit message that >> flew through my inbox. One general question, are you intending to develop >> the rest of the performatives by hand, or is this just a skeleton to >> figure >> out what your generated output should look like, or is that TBD? >> > > At this point I'm undecided. I will write a few more Performatives by hand > and then figure out if it can be automated. > It's not a lot of classes either .. so writing them by hand might not be a > huge issue. > > >> >> If you put it up on reviewboard or make a PR or something I can make some >> more detailed line by line comments and answer the questions you embedded >> in the code. >> > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/30379/ > > Thanks in advance for your comments/feedback. > > >> >> --Rafael >> > >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Rafi, > > > > I just checked in some skeleton code to explore a particular approach. > > It avoids the intermediate objects we have in proton now (Ex > FlowType.java) > > Instead the Flow class is directly used by the encoding/decoding layer. > > > > The Flow class uses java types as opposed to AMQP specific types, which > > will address one of your main concerns. > > > > The code is checked into the "rajith-codec" branch. > > The classes to look at > > Flow.java in the o/a/q/p/transport2 package > > TransportTypesEncoder and TransportTypesDecoder in o/a/q/p/codec2 > package. > > > > I've also put some question marks in the code .. pls answer them. > > But more importantly pls provide feedback on the direction taken. > > > > I'm keen to settle down on the direction/approach first and then will > start > > implementing the rest. > > > > It looks like a good start from what I saw from the commit message that > flew through my inbox. One general question, are you intending to develop > the rest of the performatives by hand, or is this just a skeleton to figure > out what your generated output should look like, or is that TBD? > At this point I'm undecided. I will write a few more Performatives by hand and then figure out if it can be automated. It's not a lot of classes either .. so writing them by hand might not be a huge issue. > > If you put it up on reviewboard or make a PR or something I can make some > more detailed line by line comments and answer the questions you embedded > in the code. > https://reviews.apache.org/r/30379/ Thanks in advance for your comments/feedback. > > --Rafael >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
Rafi, I just checked in some skeleton code to explore a particular approach. It avoids the intermediate objects we have in proton now (Ex FlowType.java) Instead the Flow class is directly used by the encoding/decoding layer. The Flow class uses java types as opposed to AMQP specific types, which will address one of your main concerns. The code is checked into the "rajith-codec" branch. The classes to look at Flow.java in the o/a/q/p/transport2 package TransportTypesEncoder and TransportTypesDecoder in o/a/q/p/codec2 package. I've also put some question marks in the code .. pls answer them. But more importantly pls provide feedback on the direction taken. I'm keen to settle down on the direction/approach first and then will start implementing the rest. Regards, Rajith On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > My inclination here would be to keep things simple. One of the more > annoying aspects of working on the Java code is dealing with the fact that > all the AMQP performatives use an entirely different type system. I would > start out with developing a plain and simple POJO representation for all > the performatives defined by the protocol. > > By POJO, I mean for example a Flow class where getCredit() actually returns > a standard java type (probably a long) rather than an > org.apache.qpid.proton.amqp.UnsignedInteger which I then need to convert > into a long in order to do anything useful with. > > You could use some code generation here, but I wouldn't sacrifice the > naturalness of the API just to allow it to be code generated, and I > wouldn't think of this as an internal API just for the engine to use. We > should have something here that anyone could use to easily decode/encode > raw AMQP performatives in a natural way. > > Once you have those classes, it should be straightforward to write a > DataHandler that will use the fast codec to produce them. > > --Rafael > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Given the existing encorder was not put behind any sort of interface (the > > impl is directly used), it's proving to be a PIA to track down all the > > different types and changing them to use the new codec. > > Look at the "public static void register(Decoder decoder, EncoderImpl > > encoder)" method of any of the XXXType classes to get a sense of what I'm > > describing. > > > > We should take this opportunity to review the current approach and see if > > we could come up with a better alternative. > > If anybody has any suggestions, I would be happy to discuss them with you > > on the list. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Rafael Schloming > > wrote: > > > > > I don't believe there is an existing one. > > > > > > --Rafael > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Rafi, > > > > > > > > Do you have a JIRA for this work? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > > > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Rafi, > > > > > > > > > > I had a closer look at the code, put it on trunk and ran your > > > benchmark. > > > > > I see quite an improvement with respect to writing lists, maps and > > > > strings. > > > > > > > > > > Simply put the writeList and writeMap methods in the old encorder > is > > > > about > > > > > ~10 times slower than the new encorder. > > > > > If I run with a sufficiently large set of strings, the old encorder > > is > > > > > about ~2 times slower than the new encorder. > > > > > > > > > > I'm now focusing on hooking it up with the engine. > > > > > > > > > > Once that is done we can look at tweaking it further. But as it is, > > the > > > > > new codec is a real improvement over the existing one. > > > > > Great job Rafi! > > > > > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > > > > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Rafi, for the link. >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
Given the existing encorder was not put behind any sort of interface (the impl is directly used), it's proving to be a PIA to track down all the different types and changing them to use the new codec. Look at the "public static void register(Decoder decoder, EncoderImpl encoder)" method of any of the XXXType classes to get a sense of what I'm describing. We should take this opportunity to review the current approach and see if we could come up with a better alternative. If anybody has any suggestions, I would be happy to discuss them with you on the list. Regards, Rajith On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > I don't believe there is an existing one. > > --Rafael > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Rafi, > > > > Do you have a JIRA for this work? > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajith > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Rafi, > > > > > > I had a closer look at the code, put it on trunk and ran your > benchmark. > > > I see quite an improvement with respect to writing lists, maps and > > strings. > > > > > > Simply put the writeList and writeMap methods in the old encorder is > > about > > > ~10 times slower than the new encorder. > > > If I run with a sufficiently large set of strings, the old encorder is > > > about ~2 times slower than the new encorder. > > > > > > I'm now focusing on hooking it up with the engine. > > > > > > Once that is done we can look at tweaking it further. But as it is, the > > > new codec is a real improvement over the existing one. > > > Great job Rafi! > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Rafi, for the link. > > >> I agree that any work should use this as a basis. > > >> > > >> I plan to take a closer look at this in the next week or so. > > >> > > >> Rajith > > >> > > >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Rafael Schloming > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> A while back I implemented a relatively complete standalone codec > here: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > https://github.com/rhs/qpid-proton-old/tree/codec/proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/codec2 > > >>> > > >>> It's quite a bit faster than the existing codec. I believe any new > > codec > > >>> work should probably be based on this. It's relatively standalone, so > > >>> should be easy to import into the tree, and then it's just a matter > of > > >>> modifying the rest of the engine to use it. Note that my > > qpid-proton-old > > >>> repo is a clone of the pre-migration repo. > > >>> > > >>> --Rafael > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > >>> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > I'm starting to look at improving this areas as I was told a few > > folks > > >>> have > > >>> > noted some concerns. > > >>> > > > >>> > I would appreciate some input on these concerns and hope to have a > > >>> > discussion to figure out how best to proceed. > > >>> > > > >>> > Regards, > > >>> > > > >>> > Rajith > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
Rafi, Could you please explaining your approach to using the AbstractEncoder with respect to starting and ending a frame. Looking at the code it wasn't immediately clear to me on how you intended to use this. A quick code example will be quite useful. Regards, Rajith On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > I don't believe there is an existing one. > > --Rafael > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Rafi, > > > > Do you have a JIRA for this work? > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajith > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Rafi, > > > > > > I had a closer look at the code, put it on trunk and ran your > benchmark. > > > I see quite an improvement with respect to writing lists, maps and > > strings. > > > > > > Simply put the writeList and writeMap methods in the old encorder is > > about > > > ~10 times slower than the new encorder. > > > If I run with a sufficiently large set of strings, the old encorder is > > > about ~2 times slower than the new encorder. > > > > > > I'm now focusing on hooking it up with the engine. > > > > > > Once that is done we can look at tweaking it further. But as it is, the > > > new codec is a real improvement over the existing one. > > > Great job Rafi! > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Rafi, for the link. > > >> I agree that any work should use this as a basis. > > >> > > >> I plan to take a closer look at this in the next week or so. > > >> > > >> Rajith > > >> > > >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Rafael Schloming > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> A while back I implemented a relatively complete standalone codec > here: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > https://github.com/rhs/qpid-proton-old/tree/codec/proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/codec2 > > >>> > > >>> It's quite a bit faster than the existing codec. I believe any new > > codec > > >>> work should probably be based on this. It's relatively standalone, so > > >>> should be easy to import into the tree, and then it's just a matter > of > > >>> modifying the rest of the engine to use it. Note that my > > qpid-proton-old > > >>> repo is a clone of the pre-migration repo. > > >>> > > >>> --Rafael > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > > >>> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > I'm starting to look at improving this areas as I was told a few > > folks > > >>> have > > >>> > noted some concerns. > > >>> > > > >>> > I would appreciate some input on these concerns and hope to have a > > >>> > discussion to figure out how best to proceed. > > >>> > > > >>> > Regards, > > >>> > > > >>> > Rajith > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
Rafi, Do you have a JIRA for this work? Regards, Rajith On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rafi, > > I had a closer look at the code, put it on trunk and ran your benchmark. > I see quite an improvement with respect to writing lists, maps and strings. > > Simply put the writeList and writeMap methods in the old encorder is about > ~10 times slower than the new encorder. > If I run with a sufficiently large set of strings, the old encorder is > about ~2 times slower than the new encorder. > > I'm now focusing on hooking it up with the engine. > > Once that is done we can look at tweaking it further. But as it is, the > new codec is a real improvement over the existing one. > Great job Rafi! > > Rajith > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Rafi, for the link. >> I agree that any work should use this as a basis. >> >> I plan to take a closer look at this in the next week or so. >> >> Rajith >> >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Rafael Schloming >> wrote: >> >>> A while back I implemented a relatively complete standalone codec here: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/rhs/qpid-proton-old/tree/codec/proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/codec2 >>> >>> It's quite a bit faster than the existing codec. I believe any new codec >>> work should probably be based on this. It's relatively standalone, so >>> should be easy to import into the tree, and then it's just a matter of >>> modifying the rest of the engine to use it. Note that my qpid-proton-old >>> repo is a clone of the pre-migration repo. >>> >>> --Rafael >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < >>> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > I'm starting to look at improving this areas as I was told a few folks >>> have >>> > noted some concerns. >>> > >>> > I would appreciate some input on these concerns and hope to have a >>> > discussion to figure out how best to proceed. >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > >>> > Rajith >>> > >>> >> >> >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
Rafi, I had a closer look at the code, put it on trunk and ran your benchmark. I see quite an improvement with respect to writing lists, maps and strings. Simply put the writeList and writeMap methods in the old encorder is about ~10 times slower than the new encorder. If I run with a sufficiently large set of strings, the old encorder is about ~2 times slower than the new encorder. I'm now focusing on hooking it up with the engine. Once that is done we can look at tweaking it further. But as it is, the new codec is a real improvement over the existing one. Great job Rafi! Rajith On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Rafi, for the link. > I agree that any work should use this as a basis. > > I plan to take a closer look at this in the next week or so. > > Rajith > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Rafael Schloming > wrote: > >> A while back I implemented a relatively complete standalone codec here: >> >> >> >> https://github.com/rhs/qpid-proton-old/tree/codec/proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/codec2 >> >> It's quite a bit faster than the existing codec. I believe any new codec >> work should probably be based on this. It's relatively standalone, so >> should be easy to import into the tree, and then it's just a matter of >> modifying the rest of the engine to use it. Note that my qpid-proton-old >> repo is a clone of the pre-migration repo. >> >> --Rafael >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < >> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I'm starting to look at improving this areas as I was told a few folks >> have >> > noted some concerns. >> > >> > I would appreciate some input on these concerns and hope to have a >> > discussion to figure out how best to proceed. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Rajith >> > >> > >
Re: [java] Message codec improvements
Thanks Rafi, for the link. I agree that any work should use this as a basis. I plan to take a closer look at this in the next week or so. Rajith On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > A while back I implemented a relatively complete standalone codec here: > > > > https://github.com/rhs/qpid-proton-old/tree/codec/proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/codec2 > > It's quite a bit faster than the existing codec. I believe any new codec > work should probably be based on this. It's relatively standalone, so > should be easy to import into the tree, and then it's just a matter of > modifying the rest of the engine to use it. Note that my qpid-proton-old > repo is a clone of the pre-migration repo. > > --Rafael > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm starting to look at improving this areas as I was told a few folks > have > > noted some concerns. > > > > I would appreciate some input on these concerns and hope to have a > > discussion to figure out how best to proceed. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajith > > >
Re: Welcome Dominic Evans as a Qpid committer
Welcome Dominic! Rajith On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Dominic Evans wrote: > > Thanks guys :) > > I've very much enjoyed getting involved with Qpid Proton development this > year and look forward to continuing to increase my contributions in the > future. > > Cheers, > Dom > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Welcome-Dominic-Evans-as-a-Qpid-committer-tp7617533p7617579.html > Sent from the Apache Qpid Proton mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
[java] Message codec improvements
I'm starting to look at improving this areas as I was told a few folks have noted some concerns. I would appreciate some input on these concerns and hope to have a discussion to figure out how best to proceed. Regards, Rajith
