> On Jul 9, 2015, at 4:59 AM, Owen Synge <osynge@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 07/09/2015 12:46 PM, John Spray wrote: >> Owen, > > Hi John, > > thanks for your reasonable mail. > >> Please can you say what your overall goal is with recent ceph-deploy >> patches? > > To give ceph-deploy code features we have in downstream ceph-deploy to > upstream. > > All I am trying to do is reduce copious code duplication during the > process of up streaming. It seems such duplication is wanted for reasons > I am yet to understand. > > I only understand that due to architectural bad practices such as this > one in how to do a basic facade class. > > I made my downstream code OS preferred directory neutral, and init > system neutral using abstractions. I’ve added a new set of comments in https://github.com/ceph/ceph-deploy/pull/317 that hopefully clarifies my position. I am *not* in favor of copious code duplication. I *am* in favor of not introducing new paradigms or architectures in the stable 1.5.x series. The 1.5.x series is packaged and supported downstream, and introducing major changes will complicate that. ceph-deploy has been in a state where the main changes we have been taking are: (1) bug/security fixes (2) new features to keep up with Ceph features (like civetweb-based RGW) (3) fixes to make user help and execution output more clear. A major refactoring (I would consider anything that moves away from the current facade paradigm to be major in 1.5.x) doesn’t fit into that. However, ceph-deploy is not dead or maintenance only, so long as there is community interest. The upstream installer developers (of which I am one) and Red Hat (also me again) are looking at alternatives for more robust installation solutions that do not involve ceph-deploy. That is also a motivation for not making major changes, like those proposed in https://github.com/ceph/ceph-deploy/pull/320. I am concerned that it will make long-term maintenance more complicated. > >> Whether a given structure is right or wrong is really a >> function of the overall direction. If you are aiming to make >> ceph-deploy into an extensible framework that can do things in parallel, >> then you need to say so, and that's a bigger conversation about whether >> that's a reasonable goal for a tool which has so far made a virtue of >> maintaining modest ambitions. > > Understood and irrelevant. > > As I stated in the email you replied to the issue of only one instance > existing which prevents processing more than one node at a time, or > even, connecting to two servers at the same time (so you can query > update a second node) can be worked around, by importing the modules as > objects, but issue (2) the structural "orange" issues are far more > serious, leading to structural artifacts of a badly implemented facade > pattern interfere with the complete code base. > >> Along these lines, I noticed that you recently submitted a pull request >> to ceph-deploy that added a dependency on SQLAlchemy, and several >> hundred lines of extra boilerplate code -- this kind of thing is >> unlikely to get a warm reception without a stronger justification for >> the extra weight. While I don't know how related that is to the points >> you're making in this post, but it certainly inspires some curiosity >> about where you're going with this. > > It was presented as a possible way to make a MVC model. > > It was only a POC, that this way of doing things could do all that is > required. > > I pulled this POC as it was told to me that no matter what I said MVC or > structural changes to ceph-deploy in any way where to be opposed by > former developers of ceph-deploy. We’ve been trying to only accept code into ceph-deploy that has a corresponding bugzilla or Ceph tracker bug referenced. I mention this because it helps us answer the question “what problem does this solve”? We haven’t enforced to all contributors in the community, but we’re trying to be more stringent about it. The code you’ve proposed in https://github.com/ceph/ceph-deploy/pull/320 seems to mainly address creating required RGW pools. I’d like to see a bug opened against that so that we can see if it is indeed something that needs to be fixed. It may very well be that this is something that RGW is supposed to be doing itself (just talking out loud again). > > I might have presented an alternative MVC but since the objections where > to MVC and also SQLAlchemy when ever it would strengthen arguments > against MVC, without even waiting to discuss positives or negatives. > > I did not want all my "bug fix" patches for ceph-deploy not beign > reviewed due to peoples seeing my name, and fearing letting in any > patches which I did into the code base. I can only speak for myself here, but I would not do that and I don’t think my colleagues would either. It would not lead to a very friendly community if any of us would rather have bugs in the code than review perfectly good patches that fix real problems. > >> I had not seen your wip_services_abstraction branch before, I've just >> taken a quick look now. More comments would probably have made it >> easier to read, as would following PEP8. > > Good review points that would have encouraged me we where moving > forwards not backwards, and suggesting everythign has to be part of the > "boat anchor" facade we already have. > >> I don't think there's anything >> problematic about having a class that knows how to start and stop a >> service, but I don't know what comments you've received elsewhere (there >> aren't any on the PR). All the comments relevant to the class abstraction are in that PR. Other conversations have taken place on IRC, but that’s been around the proposal for more of an MVC style that incorporates SQL Alchemy, and that is more related to PR #320. I’ve clarified my review on #317 to say that I like the classes for the init systems as well, but want to see them used a bit differently and to not use the higher level abstraction above them. > > Here: > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph-deploy/pull/317 > > and this is not the first time this has occurred. > > Best regards > > Owen > > PS I have to fork ceph-deploy rgw today as I have deadlines to get some > thing out of the door. > > PPS I did not intentionally kill the branch and will investigate why its > missing. > > >> >> John >> >> >> On 09/07/15 11:08, Owen Synge wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The facade pattern (or façade pattern) is a software design pattern >>> commonly used with object-oriented programming. The name is by analogy >>> to an architectural facade. (wikipedia) >>> >>> I am frustrated with the desire to "standardise" on the one bad practice >>> implementations of the facade pattern in python that is used in >>> ceph-deploy even in ceph. >>> >>> The current "standard" of selectively calling modules with functions has >>> a series of complexities to it. >>> >>> Ceph example: >>> >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/master/src/ceph-detect-init/ceph_detect_init >>> >>> >>> ceph-deploy example: >>> >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph-deploy/tree/master/ceph_deploy/hosts >>> >>> SO I guess _some_ of you dont immediately see why this is VERY bad >>> practice, and wonder why this makes me feel like the orange in this >>> story: >>> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540670/The-perfect-half-time-oranges-five-football-matches-Farmers-create-pentagon-shaped-fruit.html >>> >>> >>> when I try to code with ceph-deploy in particular. >>> >>> The ceph/ceph-deploy way of implementing a facade in python causes this >>> list the problems: >>> >>> 1) facade cannot be instantiated twice. >>> >>> 2) facade requires code layout inflexibility. >>> >>> 3) facade implementation can have side effects when implementation is >>> changed. >>> >>> And probably others I have not thought of. >>> >>> In consequence from points above. >>> >>> From (1) >>> >>> (1A) no concurrency, so you cant configure more than one ceph-node at a >>> time. >>> (1A) You have to close one facade to start anouther, eg in ceph-deploy >>> you have to close each connection before connecting to the next server >>> so making it slow to use as all state has to be gathered. >>> >>> From (2) >>> >>> (2A) No nesting of facades without code duplication. EG reuse of systemd >>> support between distributions. >>> (2B) inflexible / complex include paths for shared code between facade >>> implementations. >>> >>> From (3) >>> >>> (3A) Since all variables in a facade implementation are global, but >>> isolated to an implementation, we cannot have variables in the >>> implementation, any cross function variables that are not passed as >>> parameters or return values will return will lead to side effects that >>> are difficult to test. >>> >>> So this set of general points will have complex side effects that make >>> you feel like an the pictured orange when developing that are related to >>> wear the facade is implemented. >>> >>> About this point you will say well its open source so fix it ? >>> >>> My answer to this is that when I try to do this, as in this patch: >>> >>> https://github.com/osynge/ceph-deploy/commit/b82f89f35b27814ed4aba1082efd134c24ecf21f >>> >>> >>> More than once, seem to suggest I should use the much more complex multi >>> file implementation of a façade. >>> >>> The only advantages of implementing façades in the "standard" ceph / >>> ceph-deploy way that I can see is: >>> >>> (I) how ceph-deploy has always done this way. >>> (II) It allows you to continue using nearly no custom objects in python. >>> (III) We like our oranges in funny shapes. >>> >>> It seems to me the current implementation could have been created due to >>> the misunderstanding that modules are like objects, when intact they are >>> like classes. Issues (1) and (3) can be solved simply by importing >>> methods as objects rather than classes, but this does nothing to solve >>> the bigger issue (2) which is more serious, but its a simple step >>> forward that might very simple to patch, but their is little point in a >>> POC unless people agree that issues (1) (2) and (3) are serious. >>> >>> Please can we not spread this boat anchor* implementation of a facade, >>> further around the code base, and ideally migrate away from this bad >>> practice, and help us all feel like happy round oranges. >> > > -- > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB > 21284 (AG > Nürnberg) > > Maxfeldstraße 5 > > 90409 Nürnberg > > Germany -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
