Thin client: Java bindings

[Alexey Kukushkin]

Igniters,

I am working on a project where users will use Ignite via a thin client
protocol. The API will be Java and the client will have to support failover
and encryption.

I know community already developed the thin client protocol and .NET
bindings and is going to develop failover and encryption (I found backlog
tickets addressing failover and encryption). Thus, the only missing part is
Java bindings.

Unless someone is already working on Java bindings, let us develop and
contribute the thin client Java API to the Apache Ignite project. I believe
many can benifit from it.

There are two options to design the API: 1) implement existing interface
like IgniteCache and throw UnsupportedOperationExcception if something is
not supported 2) implement new interface and define only supported methods.
The Community  already discussed the options
<http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/New-thin-client-and-interfaces-facades-td22023.html>  
decided to use the latter option 2 for .NET bindings so we will follow the
same approach for the Java API.

On the first phase we will implement the below data-only API. Let us know if
you have comments. Thank you!

Cache
    JCache (limited)
        getName(): String
        put(key, val)
        get(key): V
        getAll(keys: Set): Map
        containsKey(key): boolean
        getAndPut(key, val): V
        getAndReplace(key, val): V
        getAndRemove(key): V
        putIfAbsent
        replace(key, val)
        replace(key, oldVal, newVal)
        putAll
        clear
        remove(key)
        remove(key, val)
        removeAll()
        removeAll(keys: Set)
        getConfiguration(clazz): Configuration
        close()
    size(modes: CachePeekMode...)
    query(qry: Query): QueryCursor
    query(qry: SqlFieldsQuery): FieldsQueryCursor<List>
    withKeepBinary(): IgniteCache
Ignite
    cache(name: String)
    cacheNames(): Collection
    binary(): IgniteBinary
    createCache(name): Cache
    getOrCreateCache(name): Cache
    destroyCache(name)
Ignition
    startClient(:ClientConfiguration): Ignite
ClientConfiguration(port, host, binaryConfiguration, sslConfiguration,
etc...)







--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

[dsetrakyan]

Hi Alexey,

Thanks for a detailed email. I think your approach is correct. Are you
planning to implement the full JCache API for the Java thin client? If yes,
I think you are missing the invoke(...) methods.

Also, would be nice to support transactions as well.

D.

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Alexey Kukushkin <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> I am working on a project where users will use Ignite via a thin client
> protocol. The API will be Java and the client will have to support failover
> and encryption.
>
> I know community already developed the thin client protocol and .NET
> bindings and is going to develop failover and encryption (I found backlog
> tickets addressing failover and encryption). Thus, the only missing part is
> Java bindings.
>
> Unless someone is already working on Java bindings, let us develop and
> contribute the thin client Java API to the Apache Ignite project. I believe
> many can benifit from it.
>
> There are two options to design the API: 1) implement existing interface
> like IgniteCache and throw UnsupportedOperationExcception if something is
> not supported 2) implement new interface and define only supported methods.
> The Community  already discussed the options
> <http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> com/New-thin-client-and-interfaces-facades-td22023.html>
> decided to use the latter option 2 for .NET bindings so we will follow the
> same approach for the Java API.
>
> On the first phase we will implement the below data-only API. Let us know
> if
> you have comments. Thank you!
>
> Cache
>     JCache (limited)
>         getName(): String
>         put(key, val)
>         get(key): V
>         getAll(keys: Set): Map
>         containsKey(key): boolean
>         getAndPut(key, val): V
>         getAndReplace(key, val): V
>         getAndRemove(key): V
>         putIfAbsent
>         replace(key, val)
>         replace(key, oldVal, newVal)
>         putAll
>         clear
>         remove(key)
>         remove(key, val)
>         removeAll()
>         removeAll(keys: Set)
>         getConfiguration(clazz): Configuration
>         close()
>     size(modes: CachePeekMode...)
>     query(qry: Query): QueryCursor
>     query(qry: SqlFieldsQuery): FieldsQueryCursor<List>
>     withKeepBinary(): IgniteCache
> Ignite
>     cache(name: String)
>     cacheNames(): Collection
>     binary(): IgniteBinary
>     createCache(name): Cache
>     getOrCreateCache(name): Cache
>     destroyCache(name)
> Ignition
>     startClient(:ClientConfiguration): Ignite
> ClientConfiguration(port, host, binaryConfiguration, sslConfiguration,
> etc...)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>

[Alexey Kukushkin]

Dmitriy,

Although having invoke() was really important for us, implementing invoke()
does not look trivial (need to think about real multi-lingual and
cross-platform design) and we do not have time to implement it on the first
phase. Currently thin client protocol does not support it so we would have
to design it ourselves. Still we will need invoke and transactions on the
next phases and really appreciate if community would design something to
support it in the binary protocol.

[dsetrakyan]

Got it, thanks!

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:02 AM, Alexey Kukushkin <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> Although having invoke() was really important for us, implementing invoke()
> does not look trivial (need to think about real multi-lingual and
> cross-platform design) and we do not have time to implement it on the first
> phase. Currently thin client protocol does not support it so we would have
> to design it ourselves. Still we will need invoke and transactions on the
> next phases and really appreciate if community would design something to
> support it in the binary protocol.
>

[dmagda]

Not sure the protocol should care of invoke() or any compute grid methods. Technically the user add a computation or entry processor to the class path of remote nodes and then trigger them using a simple operation support by the protocol. But do users and we really need this? Usually invoke and compute grid are used together with peer-class-loading.

—
Denis

> On Jan 16, 2018, at 1:29 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexey,
>
> Thanks for a detailed email. I think your approach is correct. Are you
> planning to implement the full JCache API for the Java thin client? If yes,
> I think you are missing the invoke(...) methods.
>
> Also, would be nice to support transactions as well.
>
> D.
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Alexey Kukushkin <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Igniters,
>>
>> I am working on a project where users will use Ignite via a thin client
>> protocol. The API will be Java and the client will have to support failover
>> and encryption.
>>
>> I know community already developed the thin client protocol and .NET
>> bindings and is going to develop failover and encryption (I found backlog
>> tickets addressing failover and encryption). Thus, the only missing part is
>> Java bindings.
>>
>> Unless someone is already working on Java bindings, let us develop and
>> contribute the thin client Java API to the Apache Ignite project. I believe
>> many can benifit from it.
>>
>> There are two options to design the API: 1) implement existing interface
>> like IgniteCache and throw UnsupportedOperationExcception if something is
>> not supported 2) implement new interface and define only supported methods.
>> The Community  already discussed the options
>> <http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
>> com/New-thin-client-and-interfaces-facades-td22023.html>
>> decided to use the latter option 2 for .NET bindings so we will follow the
>> same approach for the Java API.
>>
>> On the first phase we will implement the below data-only API. Let us know
>> if
>> you have comments. Thank you!
>>
>> Cache
>>    JCache (limited)
>>        getName(): String
>>        put(key, val)
>>        get(key): V
>>        getAll(keys: Set): Map
>>        containsKey(key): boolean
>>        getAndPut(key, val): V
>>        getAndReplace(key, val): V
>>        getAndRemove(key): V
>>        putIfAbsent
>>        replace(key, val)
>>        replace(key, oldVal, newVal)
>>        putAll
>>        clear
>>        remove(key)
>>        remove(key, val)
>>        removeAll()
>>        removeAll(keys: Set)
>>        getConfiguration(clazz): Configuration
>>        close()
>>    size(modes: CachePeekMode...)
>>    query(qry: Query): QueryCursor
>>    query(qry: SqlFieldsQuery): FieldsQueryCursor<List>
>>    withKeepBinary(): IgniteCache
>> Ignite
>>    cache(name: String)
>>    cacheNames(): Collection
>>    binary(): IgniteBinary
>>    createCache(name): Cache
>>    getOrCreateCache(name): Cache
>>    destroyCache(name)
>> Ignition
>>    startClient(:ClientConfiguration): Ignite
>> ClientConfiguration(port, host, binaryConfiguration, sslConfiguration,
>> etc...)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>

[dmagda]

Alexey,

Pavel agreed to add transactions to the protocol in 2.5 release:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7369 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7369>

—
Denis

> On Jan 16, 2018, at 2:02 AM, Alexey Kukushkin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dmitriy,
>
> Although having invoke() was really important for us, implementing invoke()
> does not look trivial (need to think about real multi-lingual and
> cross-platform design) and we do not have time to implement it on the first
> phase. Currently thin client protocol does not support it so we would have
> to design it ourselves. Still we will need invoke and transactions on the
> next phases and really appreciate if community would design something to
> support it in the binary protocol.

[Alexey Kukushkin]

We also need asynchronous versions of all the thin client APIs. I created
JIRA-7623 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7623>   to address
async APIs. Proposed design:
Async methods are named by appending "Async" to the corresponding
syncMethod, e.g. putAsync, clearAsync.
Async methods return java.util.concurrent.Future
Async methods are not cancellable (presently cancellation is not supported
by the thin client protocol)
Use thin client protocol's Request ID to map async requests and responses.



--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

[Alexey Kukushkin]

Igniters!

Could you please help with the Java thin client code review:

Documentation <https://apacheignite.readme.io/v2.3/docs/java-thin-client>
Code <https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/apache-ignite/review/IG-CR-25>

Thank you for the help.

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Alexey Kukushkin <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> We also need asynchronous versions of all the thin client APIs. I created
> JIRA-7623 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7623>   to address
> async APIs. Proposed design:
> Async methods are named by appending "Async" to the corresponding
> syncMethod, e.g. putAsync, clearAsync.
> Async methods return java.util.concurrent.Future
> Async methods are not cancellable (presently cancellation is not supported
> by the thin client protocol)
> Use thin client protocol's Request ID to map async requests and responses.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>



--
Best regards,
Alexey

[dmagda]

Alexey, outstanding progress! Can't wait the client rolled out to Ignite
users.

Please create a doc JIRA ticket for 2.5 release and assign to Prachi for
review.

--
Denis

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Alexey Kukushkin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Igniters!
>
> Could you please help with the Java thin client code review:
>
> Documentation <https://apacheignite.readme.io/v2.3/docs/java-thin-client>
> Code <https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/apache-ignite/review/IG-CR-23>
>
> Thank you for the help.
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Alexey Kukushkin <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > We also need asynchronous versions of all the thin client APIs. I created
> > JIRA-7623 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7623>   to
> address
> > async APIs. Proposed design:
> > Async methods are named by appending "Async" to the corresponding
> > syncMethod, e.g. putAsync, clearAsync.
> > Async methods return java.util.concurrent.Future
> > Async methods are not cancellable (presently cancellation is not
> supported
> > by the thin client protocol)
> > Use thin client protocol's Request ID to map async requests and
> responses.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Alexey
>