Inline - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vladimir Vivien" <vladimir.viv...@gmail.com> > To: user@mesos.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:34:37 PM > Subject: Re: Mesos language bindings in the wild > Hi all, > Apologies for being super late to this thread. To answer Niklas point at the > start of the thread: Yes, I am thrilled to contribute in anyway I can. The > project is moving forward and making progress (slower than I want, but > progress regardless). > Going Native > Implementing a native client for Mesos is an arduous process right now since > there's little doc to guide developers. Once I went through C++ code and a > few emails, it became easy (even easier than I thought). If the push is for > more native client, at some point we will need basic internals to be > documented. > Mesos-Certified > Maybe a Mesos test suite can be used to certify native clients. There are > tons of unit tests in the code that already validate the source code. Maybe > some of those test logic can be pulled out / copied into a small stand-alone > mesos test server that clients can communicate with to run a test suite > (just an idea). This along with some documentation would help with quality > of native clients. +1. > In or Out of Core > Having native clients source hosted in core would be great since all code > would be in one location. Go code can certainly co-exist a subproject in > Mesos. Go's build workflow can be driven by Make. Go's dependency management > can work with repo subdirectories (at least according to 'go help > importpath', I haven't tested that myself). But, as Tom pointed out, the > thing that raises a flag for me is project velocity. If author wants to move > faster or slower than Mesos release cycles, there's no way to do so once the > code is part of core. > Anyway, I have gone on long enough. Looking for ward to feedback. I usually don't tread here, but perhaps a git-submodule works in this narrow case. Thoughts? > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Tim St Clair < tstcl...@redhat.com > wrote: > > Tom - > > > I understand the desire to create bindings outside the core. The point I > > was > > trying to make earlier around version semantics and testing was to 'Hedge' > > the risk. It basically creates a contract between core & framework+bindings > > writers. > > > No one ever intends to break compatibility, but it happens all the time and > > usually in some very subtle ways at first. A great example of this is a > > patch I recently submitted to Mesos where the cgroup code was writing an > > extra <<endln out. Earlier versions of the kernel had no issue with this, > > but recent modifications would cause the cgroup code to fail. Very subtle, > > and boom-goes-the-dynamite. > > > Below was an email I sent a while back, that outlines a possible > > hedge/contract. Please let me know what you think. > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > Greetings! > > > > > > > > I've conversed with folks about the idea of having a more formalized > > > release > > > > and branching strategy, such that others who are downstream can rely on > > > > certain version semantics when planning upgrades, etc. This becomes > > > doubly > > > > important as we start to trend towards a 1.0 release, and folks will > > > depend > > > > heavily on it for their core infrastructure, and APIs (Frameworks, and > > > EC). > > > > > > > > Therefore, I wanted to propose a more formalized branching and release > > > > strategy, and see what others think. I slightly modified this pattern > > > from > > > > the Condor & Kernel projects, which have well established processes. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Basic Idea: > > > > > > > > 1.) Create 2 Main Branches (Stable/Devel-Master based) > > > > 2.) Devel releases are cadence/time based and lightly tested. > > > > 3.) Stable series only accepts bug fixes. Merge path for all bug fixes > > > > deemed worthy, are through the stable series up to master. > > > > 4.) @ some point devel goes through a *hardning phase* and becomes the > > > new > > > > stable. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Version Semantics: > > > > > > > > Major.Minor.Revision-PatchBuild > > > > > > > > Major: > > > > - Compatibility breakage (usually protocol or api shift), or enough > > > minors > > > > to justify change. > > > If there is a major version change it should be taken with care and notify > > downstream usually through the > > > mailing lists. > > > > > > > > Minor: > > > > - Devel (Odd) - 1.1.x > > > > - Stable (Even) - 1.0.x > > > > > > > > Revision: > > > > - Devel - Cadence # Some set of feature enhancements > > > > - Stable - Bug and security fixes only (Higher bar of entry) > > > > > > > > PatchBuild: > > > > - Upstream - Whoops our bad, we found a bug or two > > > > - Downstream - Back-port build variant. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Series/Branches: > > > > > > > > Development Series - (Odd Minor #'s): 1.1.x > > > > The development series branches/tags are cadence based, and come off of > > > > master. All new features are added to master. All bug fixes should be > > > > merged through the stable series into the master. It should be ok to > > > > introduce destabilizing features from time to time, provided its agreed > > > upon > > > > by a Sheppard. > > > > > > > > Stable Series - (Even Minor #'s): 1.0.x > > > > Stable series should *only contain* bug fixes. This way, downstream folks > > > > have a common understanding that behavior should be maintained. Should > > > > downstream folks wish to back-port features, they can do that at their > > > own > > > > risk. Every release of the stable series has some measure of quality > > > > then > > > > a +1. E.g. running some clusters for a period of time (X), > > > > > > > In this model, stable series should be "stable" for writers against the > > API(s). > > > > Transition from Devel-> Stable: > > > > After some point, the development series needs to go through a hardening > > > > phase. This could include static analysis + running on some production > > > > cluster for a period of time. Folks typically plan the transition around > > > a > > > > conference series in order to announce the cool new features. > > > + You could test the bindings during this phase ^ but for stable series > > they > > should just work. > > > > ------------------------------ > > > Cheers, > > > Tim > > > > From: "Tom Arnfeld" < t...@duedil.com > > > > > > > To: user@mesos.apache.org > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:50:47 AM > > > > > > Subject: Re: Mesos language bindings in the wild > > > > > > Hey Tim, > > > > > > I can see your point, and am finding it hard to think of any compelling > > > arguments against the issue of fragmentation, but I do have a few > > > thoughts.p > > > > > > That said, I would strongly suggest taking ease-of-use and language > > > specific > > > code structures into consideration. A huge monolithic build system might > > > not > > > be a good thing either, if I'm not mistaken that's why twitter built > > > Pants. > > > > > > Spark is actually a great example here, it's going to be a huge pain to > > > publish PySpark to PYPI because of the way they structure the code, > > > unless > > > you force users to use a bleeding edge version of setuptools to be able > > > to > > > install the software. In the case of PySpark (and other libraries that > > > require compiled dependencies, see Hadoofus on github which I > > > collaborated > > > on this exact issue). It's a nightmare. Projects that work well with > > > python > > > setuptools are projects that are just python, from my experience. > > > > > > That said, it's only a nightmare when you *have* precompiled dependencies > > > that need to be part of the build process. This is no longer the case > > > with > > > the new mesos bindings, so why make it so hard? > > > > > > Take Go as another example (this is similar to installing pip > > > dependencies > > > from github too) - a user can simply plug in the path to a repository and > > > away they go. It's easy, and will rapidly speed up adoption IMO. This > > > isn't > > > something that can easily be done if it's not in it's own repo, and the > > > Mesos repository is pretty huge now. > > > > > > My opinion is largely from a users perspective. However, I would ask the > > > question - how often does the framework API change in such a way that it > > > breaks compatibility? Will there be a need to orchestrate releases among > > > 20 > > > language bindings to get a release of the core out, how often? Would it > > > be > > > easier for developers to implement a change and also make that change > > > across > > > all languages at the same time, is that even really going to happen? > > > > > > It's also worth considering release cycles, with all bindings being built > > > into the core, it requires them all the be release together (or it's a > > > git > > > tag pain). Given that lots of the bindings are going to be (and already > > > are) > > > community driven, and only a few people are in charge of the Mesos > > > release > > > cycle (taking at least a few weeks for a release to come out) the pace > > > for > > > each binding has to be the same, and there's no autonomy. > > > > > > My personal feeling is that develop user experience isn't thought about > > > enough is these sorts of situations, and not having a good experience > > > either > > > to use or work on the code is a pain and can slow down adoption. > > > > > > Would be interested to hear what you all think, or if you completely > > > disagree > > > :-) > > > > > > Tom. > > > > > > On Tuesday, 15 July 2014, Tim St Clair < tstcl...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > > > > > So... your response basically capitulates to the fragmentation > > > > argument: > > > > > > > > > > "Yes we will have binding strewn about of questionable quality that > > > > may, > > > > or > > > > may not, work with core." > > > > > > > > > > The point that I'm trying to make is, fragmentation *is not* a good > > > > thing. > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Case in point - The Hadoop Ecosystem (fragmentation) > > > > > > > > > > In order for anyone to make a salient stack of any measure, vendors > > > > have > > > > to > > > > knit together components into a stack which can then be consumed by the > > > > masses. > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Counterpoint - Spark (curating) libraries > > > > > > > > > > Spark bundles 1st order interface libraries as part of a curated core. > > > > You > > > > are guaranteed that the core will inter-operate, and PySpark is given > > > > 1st > > > > class standing. > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad idea, unless there is a plan to hedge the risk. > > > > > > > > > > -Tim > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > > From: "yifan" < myan...@msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > To: user@mesos.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 7:10:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Mesos language bindings in the wild > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found that in zookeeper, they also separate the bindings from the > > > > > core. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ZKClientBindings > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, IMHO, I think it should be the maintainer's responsibility to > > > > > keep > > > > > > > > > > > the binding in healthy state, with clear documentation of which > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > > > of the mesos core they supports. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yifan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/14/2014 11:30 AM, Tim St Clair wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So I fear the fragmentation that can occur if we provide native > > > > > > bindings > > > > > > > > > > > > outside of the core, unless there is some mechanism for testing, & > > > > > > a > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > > > > > established versioning scheme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, priority inversion on 'versioning' should come before > > > > > > bindings > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > ensure we adhere to policy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: "Tom Arnfeld" < t...@duedil.com > > > > > > > > > > > > >> To: d...@mesos.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > >> Cc: user@mesos.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:22:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: Mesos language bindings in the wild > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Very exciting. I'd vote +1 for splitting them out. Especially if > > > > > >> you > > > > > > > > > > > >> look at the common way of using Go imports, just stick the project > > > > > >> on > > > > > > > > > > > >> GitHub and import it directly using " github.com/mesos/mesos-go " > > > > > >> or > > > > > > > > > > > >> similar. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess one argument is that you have more fragmentation of the > > > > > >> code > > > > > > > > > > > >> (e.g every library has it's own copy of the protos) but I'm not > > > > > >> sure > > > > > > > > > > > >> that's a bad thing. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Just my two cents. Looking forward to this! > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 11 Jul 2014, at 16:59, Thomas Rampelberg < tho...@saunter.org > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've started preparing the python bindings to hopefully take this > > > > > > > > > > > >>> route ( https://reviews.apache.org/r/23224/ would love some > > > > > >>> reviews! > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ). In fact, there is already a native python implementation of > > > > > >>> both > > > > > > > > > > > >>> libprocess and the framework apis! ( > > > > > >>> https://github.com/wickman/pesos/ > > > > > > > > > > > >>> , https://github.com/wickman/compactor ). > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are the benefits of bindings being part of the project > > > > > >>> source > > > > > > > > > > > >>> itself instead of having blessed implementations like > > > > > >>> mesos-python > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where the source and versioning becomes separate? I've been > > > > > >>> running > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into difficulties making automake and python's build tools play > > > > > >>> nicely > > > > > > > > > > > >>> together. It seems like there'd be more flexibility in general by > > > > > > > > > > > >>> splitting them out. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Niklas Nielsen < > > > > > >>>> nik...@mesosphere.io > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I just wanted to clarify - native, meaning _no_ dependency to > > > > > >>>> libmesos > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> native to its language (only Go, only Python and so on) i.e. use > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> low-level API. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Sorry for the confusion, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Niklas > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 10 July 2014 15:55, Dominic Hamon < dha...@twopensource.com > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> In my dream world, we wouldn't need any native bindings. I can > > > > > >>>>> imagine > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> having example frameworks or starter frameworks that use the > > > > > >>>>> low-level > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> API > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (the wire protocol with protocol buffers for message passing), > > > > > >>>>> but > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> nothing > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> like we have that needs C or JNI, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Niklas Nielsen < > > > > > >>>>> nik...@mesosphere.io > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I wanted to start a discussion around the language bindings in > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wild > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (Go, Haskell, native Python, Go, Java and so on) and possibly > > > > > >>>>>> get > > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>> a > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> strategy where we start bringing those into Mesos proper. As > > > > > >>>>>> most > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> things > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> points towards, it will probably make sense to focus on the > > > > > >>>>>> native > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "bindings" leveraging the low-level API. To name one candidate > > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> start > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with, we are especially interested in getting Go native > > > > > >>>>>> support > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Mesos > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> proper (and in a solid state). So Vladimir, we'd be super > > > > > >>>>>> thrilled > > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> start > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> collaborating with you on your current work. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We are interested to hear what thoughts you all might have on > > > > > >>>>>> this. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Niklas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Gu Yifan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > Timothy St. Clair > > > > > > > > > > Red Hat Inc. > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > Timothy St. Clair > > > Red Hat Inc. > > -- > Vladimir Vivien -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair Red Hat Inc.
