Better OSGi support #269

lburgazzoli · 2017-12-29T15:08:28Z

This PR is aimed to improve JEtcd OSGi support and includes the following changes to the current projects:

there is a new artifact jetcd-common to have better separation of modules
there is a new artifact jetcd-osgi that provides Apache Karaf features and some JEtcd services exposed via OSGi DS
jetcd-all is now enabled and shades all the dependencies jetcd requires. this is needed because grpc has some split packages issues so it is not possible to deploy "plain" grpc artifacts in OSGi environments

Some more work may be needed but I'd like to get this merged so people can test it.

fanminshi · 2018-01-02T20:17:06Z

@lburgazzoli i took a quick glance of the code. it seems to me there are lot of code changes in different areas

there is a new artifact jetcd-common to have better separation of modules
there is a new artifact jetcd-osgi that provides Apache Karaf features and some JEtcd services exposed via OSGi DS
jetcd-all is now enabled and shades all the dependencies jetcd requires. this is needed because grpc has some split packages issues so it is not possible to deploy "plain" grpc artifacts in OSGi environments

is it possible to submit separate standalone pr for each? in that way, it can help better to understand all the changes happening in the pr.

lburgazzoli · 2018-01-03T06:21:54Z

@fanminshi I can try to split it into different PRs but not sure if I can make it soon.

Most of the code changes are just code relocation:

jetcd-common at the moment contains only the etcd exceptions relocated from jetcd-core/com.coreos.jetcd.exception
jetcd-resolver is the new home for jetcd/com.coreos.jetcd.resolver
jetcd-resolver-dbs-srv is almost a rename of jetcd-discovery-dns-srv
jetcd-osgi is a brand new module with 2 small classes and related tests

The main changes apply to the POMs to properly configure OSGi stuffs and ion particular to jetcd-all which is now used as OSGi bundle as workaround for the following grpg-java issue with module systems:

fanminshi · 2018-01-08T18:48:03Z

etc/scripts/run_etcd_docker.sh

@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ docker run \
    --name etcd-ssl \
    --hostname etcd-ssl \
    --network etcd \
-    --volume $CERT_HOME:/etc/ssl/etcd \
+    --volume $CERT_HOME:/etc/ssl/etcd:Z \


what's Z option for?

Z is for SElinux, it should jave no effects on systems were SELinux is disabled

fanminshi · 2018-01-08T18:49:19Z

jetcd-all/src/main/java/com/coreos/jetcd/all/package-info.java

+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+
+package com.coreos.jetcd.all;


fanminshi · 2018-01-08T20:24:49Z

jetcd-osgi/src/main/resources/features.xml

+
+        <feature prerequisite="true">wrap</feature>
+
+        <!-- google -->


why is this commented out? prefer codebase to be as minimum as possible.

This is left as documentation to show how the karaf feature should looks like once grpc solves the split package issue

i see. Could you add comment to explain the intention?

fanminshi · 2018-01-08T20:26:48Z

jetcd-resolver-dns-srv/src/main/java/com/coreos/jetcd/resolver/dnssrv/DnsSrvUriResolver.java

@@ -50,7 +48,7 @@
    ENV.put("java.naming.provider.url", "dns:");
  }

-  private ConcurrentMap<String, EquivalentAddressGroup> cache;
+  private ConcurrentMap<String, SocketAddress> cache;


why changing EquivalentAddressGroup to SocketAddress?

To reduce packages inter dependencies among OSGi bundles

fanminshi · 2018-01-08T20:29:18Z

jetcd-resolver/src/test/java/com/coreos/jetcd/resolver/NameResolverTest.java

@@ -31,7 +29,7 @@ public void testDefaults() throws Exception {
    final URIResolverLoader loader = URIResolverLoader.defaultLoader();
    final SmartNameResolver resolver = new SmartNameResolver("etcd", Collections.emptyList(), loader);

-    assertThat(resolver.getResolvers().stream().anyMatch(DirectUriResolver.class::isInstance)).isTrue();
+    Assertions.assertThat(resolver.getResolvers().stream().anyMatch(DirectUriResolver.class::isInstance)).isTrue();


any reason on changing imports to import org.assertj.core.api.Assertions?

No done intentionally, guess the IDE did it while refactoring. Will fix it

fanminshi · 2018-01-08T20:31:44Z

@lburgazzoli looks good in general. I quickly studied osgi and gain an general idea on your osgi implementation. it would be better if someone with more expertise can also review the osgi part of code.

also the ci is broken. could you check upon that.

lburgazzoli · 2018-01-23T09:07:58Z

@fanminshi I'm having some issues ot understand why the OSGi tests fails on travis-ci but not locally and I do not have time to digg into further so would it be ok if I mark as @ignored OSGi tests for the moment ? I'd like to get this PR merged asap so it does not diverge too much from master.

fanminshi · 2018-01-23T15:48:22Z

@lburgazzoli I understand your concern. I usually don't want to merge anything that has potential bug whether it is ci or code itself. Is there a rush in pushing osgi support in? afaik, not many changes are being pushed into jetcd. I think you are safe from worrying about pr diverging. Could we get another week or two of debugging. I might take a look as well. If we can't figure out by then, we can the pr with @ignored test option.

lburgazzoli · 2018-01-23T15:55:19Z

Yeah I have no issue to wait some more weeks. In fact my main goal is to get jetcd in apache-camel and OSGi support is definitively something that would be more that welcome.

lburgazzoli · 2018-01-31T06:47:05Z

@fanminshi I disabled the test because I have very little time at the moment to digg into it and it should be an issue with temporary directories or ports as there's no other reason to have such a different behavior, I 'll have a further look as soon as possible but it would be nice if we can get this merged.

lburgazzoli · 2018-02-13T22:34:27Z

@fanminshi I've rebased against latest master, can we get this merged ?

fanminshi · 2018-02-13T22:37:06Z

yeah, let's get this merged.

tisonkun · 2019-08-08T13:53:38Z

I found several diffs on changing import io.etcd.jetcd.Auth; to import io.etcd.jetcd.api.Auth;(e.g., io.etcd.jetcd.auth.*Response). However, the former is the proper one. Maybe it is done by automatically refactoring.

lburgazzoli requested a review from fanminshi December 29, 2017 15:08

fanminshi reviewed Jan 8, 2018

View reviewed changes

lburgazzoli force-pushed the osgi branch 4 times, most recently from 14bf338 to be9a6f4 Compare January 10, 2018 12:49

lburgazzoli force-pushed the osgi branch from be9a6f4 to 5098a76 Compare January 23, 2018 09:05

lburgazzoli force-pushed the osgi branch 2 times, most recently from 3ce39ab to 371c2fb Compare January 31, 2018 06:44

lburgazzoli added 2 commits February 13, 2018 23:26

osgi support

e96e29a

osgi support (temporary disable osgi tests)

ba22d1c

lburgazzoli force-pushed the osgi branch from 371c2fb to ba22d1c Compare February 13, 2018 22:33

fanminshi merged commit 71c0d01 into etcd-io:master Feb 13, 2018

lburgazzoli deleted the osgi branch February 13, 2018 23:14

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Better OSGi support #269

Better OSGi support #269

lburgazzoli commented Dec 29, 2017

fanminshi commented Jan 2, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Jan 3, 2018

fanminshi Jan 8, 2018

lburgazzoli Jan 9, 2018

fanminshi Jan 8, 2018

fanminshi Jan 8, 2018

lburgazzoli Jan 9, 2018

fanminshi Jan 9, 2018

fanminshi Jan 8, 2018

lburgazzoli Jan 9, 2018 •

edited

Loading

fanminshi Jan 9, 2018

fanminshi Jan 8, 2018

lburgazzoli Jan 9, 2018

fanminshi commented Jan 8, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Jan 23, 2018

fanminshi commented Jan 23, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Jan 23, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Jan 31, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Feb 13, 2018

fanminshi commented Feb 13, 2018

tisonkun commented Aug 8, 2019

Better OSGi support #269

Better OSGi support #269

Conversation

lburgazzoli commented Dec 29, 2017

fanminshi commented Jan 2, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Jan 3, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lburgazzoli Jan 9, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fanminshi commented Jan 8, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Jan 23, 2018

fanminshi commented Jan 23, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Jan 23, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Jan 31, 2018

lburgazzoli commented Feb 13, 2018

fanminshi commented Feb 13, 2018

tisonkun commented Aug 8, 2019

lburgazzoli Jan 9, 2018 •

edited

Loading