Re: [ovirt-devel] [ATN] Introduction of RESTAPI metamodel

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Juan Hernández <jhernand(a)redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com>> wrote: On 10/27/2015 11:28 AM, Roman Mohr wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Juan Hernández <jhernand(a)redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com> > <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com>>> wrote: > > On 10/27/2015 10:16 AM, Roman Mohr wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Juan Hernández <jhernand(a)redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com> <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com>> > > <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com> <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com>>>> wrote: > > > > On 10/26/2015 04:56 PM, Roman Mohr wrote: > > > Hi Juan, > > > > > > The way to specify the contract look pretty clean and nice. > > > I would love to read a few words about the big picture. What > is the > > > final scenario? > > > > > > > The motivation for this change is that currently we don't have > a central > > place where the RESTAPI is specified, rather we have several > different > > places, using several different technologies: > > > > * XML schema for the data model. > > * JAX-RS for part of the operational model (without the > parameters). > > * rsdl_metadata.yaml for the parameters of the operational model. > > > > This makes it difficult to infer information about the model. For > > example, the generators of the SDKs have to download the XML > schema, and > > the RSDL (which is generated from the JAX-RS interfaces using > reflection > > and combining it with the information from the > rsdl_metadata.yaml file) > > and then they have to do their own computations to extract > what they > > need. > > > > Same happens with the CLI: it has to extract the information > it needs > > from the Python code generated for the Python SDK, yet another > level of > > indirection. > > > > > > You are right, that definitely needs to be cleaned up. I just want to > > discuss a few points below with you. > > > > > > > > We are also lacking a comprehensive reference documentation of the > > RESTAPI. What we currently have has been written by hand, and > gets out > > of sync very quickly, and we don't even notice. > > > > > > Did you also consider swagger? It is made for exactly that purpose. > > I created a demo in [1] which uses resteasy, weld, hibernate-validator > > and swagger to demonstrate how to do DRY with jaxrs. > > Would be great to hear you thoughts on that. > > > > And there is the great swagger-ui [8] to display the documentation > in a > > more human readable way. > > > > Yes, I considered Swagger, and rejected it because it is JSON centric, > and I think JSON isn't as good as Java to represent the contracts of our > RESTAPI. > > > You just write plain jax-rs, swagger just creates a description out of > it. So the source defining the contract is pure java (jax-rs with some > swagger annotations for description, etc.). > Or am I missing the point here? > If I understand correctly the Swagger core is a JSON (or YAML) specification of the API. From that you can generate JAX-RS annotated code, not the other way around. So the specification document that you write is a JSON document. You are right, my terminology here was not clear. Swagger is just a specification. Swagger-core and swagger-jaxrs are the ones which can create the documnetation out of JAX-RS resources. Alternatively, you can use the Swagger annotations to decorate your implementation, both the entity classes and the JAX-RS resource implementations, and then extract the model from that. But this is putting the implementation before the specification. That is where we are today, and it causes multiple problems. I think it is better to have the specification and the implementation separate. Swagger does that well when using JSON directly, our metamodel also does it well, but using a better language. Isn't our problem that we have everything scattered arount the place and not that we are using JAX-RS? I don't think that this has anything to do with specification before implementation or implementation before specification.

> > > In addition we need to do these changes in a smooth way, without causing > big changes in the middle. For example, in the first step we need to > preserve the JAX-RS interfaces as they are today, to avoid massive > changes to all the resource implementations. This could be done with > > Swagger, but would require custom code generators. With less effort we > can do our own. > > > This is of course generally a difficult task. But I do not know why it > would be more difficult to write a custom swagger reader (if we even > have to, it can read the interfaces as well) . > They are pretty streight forward. Just look at [9], this contains the > wole jax-rs specific code to generate the swagger documentation. > > But yes, I don't know every detail here of the engine and can't clearly > say that integrating that would just streight forward (my feeling tells > me that it would not be too hard). I am just under the impression that > we would benefit from that. Just reduces custom magic to a minimum. > Using something like Swagger would be certainly possible, and not that hard, but it requires an effort. For example, say that we decide to use the Swagger annotations. Then we will need to add these annotations to all our JAX-RS resource implementations. That is a non trivial effort. We would need to add the annotations to the entities as well. But wait, we don't have such entities, only XML schema. So we would need a reader that parses XML schema, and creating it requires effort. You can just create the entities/daos once like we do now on every build and annotate them once and drop the whole xml.

Where do we put the documentation then? Part in the JAX-RS interfaces, part in the XML schema. I don't understand that. There is only one documentation and implementation source, that is the JAX-RS resource and the entity/dao accepted by the endpoint. The XML schema can just be removed. The documentation in swagger format for other tools like swagger-codegen and swagger-ci can be made available through swagger-maven-plugin or a servlet in the engine which generates the swagger json on the fly (like I did in [1])

We are already there, and we ended up with no documentation at all. In my view the sum of these efforts is higher than doing our own metamodel. > > > Swagger UI is certainly great. I did test it and it is really good. We > may be able to copy some concepts. > > > > > > > To solve these issues I intend to have the specification of > the RESTAPI > > only in one place, and using only one technology. I decided to > use Java > > interfaces for that. Note however that they are just the > support for the > > information, like paper is the support for ink. I decided to > use Java > > because it is easy to create, modify and re-factor using tools > familiar > > to most of us. > > > > These source of these interfaces is analysed (using QDox, > currently) and > > a "model" of the RESTAPI is generated in memory. This model is > > independent of the supporting Java source, and easy to > consume. For > > example, imagine that you want to list all the types available > in the > > model and for each one display its documentation: > > > > Model model = ...; > > for (Type type : model.getTypes()) { > > Name name = type.getName(); > > String doc = type.getDoc(); > > System.out.println(name + ": " + doc); > > } > > > > Something like this, but more elaborate, will be part of a web > > application that provides comprehensive reference documentation, > > assuming that we dedicate the time to write documentation > comments in > > the specification. > > > > I intend to use this model also to do simplify the generators > of the > > SDKs and the CLI. > > > > In addition these are some of the things that I would like to > change in > > the near future (for 4.0): > > > > * Move the specification of the parameters of operations out > of the > > rsdl_metadata.yaml file and into the model. For example: > > > > @Service > > public VmService { > > /** > > * The operation to add a virtual machine. > > */ > > interface Add { > > /** > > * The representation of the virtual machine is received > > * as parameter, and the representation of the created > > * virtual machine is returned as result. > > */ > > @In @Out Vm vm(); > > > > /** > > * In the future, we will be able to specify other > > * parameters here. > > */ > > @In Boolean force(); > > > > /** > > * Even with default values. > > */ > > @In default Boolean force() { return true; } > > > > /** > > * And we will be able to specify constraints, which > > * will replace the rsdl_metadata.yaml file. > > */ > > @Constraint > > default boolean vmNameMustNotBeNull() { > > return vm().name() != null; > > } > > } > > } > > > > * Enforce the constraints automatically. If the constraints > are in the > > model, then we can just check them and reject requests before > delivering > > them to the application. Currently we do this manually (and often > > forget) with calls to "validate(...)" methods. > > > > > > > > Did you consider just annotating the DTOs with JSR-303 annotations and > > integrate a validator with jax-rs? > > See [2] for an example. > > > > This is a great way to implement a system, but the goal here isn't to > implement it, rather to specify it. Using annotations in this way won't > help the generators of the SDKs, for example, to figure out what > parameters are required, mandatory, etc. > > > Swagger understands them. From my example project, swagger created that > > description: > type: "string" > minLength: 10 > maxLength: 100 > > out of > > @Size(min=10, max=100) # jsr-303 > private String description; > > and so does swagger-codegen which can generate clients in java, python, ... > This is extracting the specification from the implementation, which isn't correct in my opinion, it should be the opposite. Not saying that this makes Swagger bad, it is nice that it has this capability, but I think we can do it better. In my opition this is the main advantage of that. It is DRY while still having full control of the implementation.

> > > > > > * Generate the Java classes directly from the model. Instead of Model -> > > XML Schema -> Java, we can do Model -> Java. This will allow us to solve > > some of the XJC compiler limitations, like the horrible way we handle > > arrays today. > > > > > > Swagger [3] is a rest documentation specification. There is also a maven > > plugin [4] and you can create clients for example with [5]. > > > > > > > > * Replace JAX-RS with a simpler infrastructure that supports better > > streaming and CDI injection. > > > > > > > > With resteasy-cdi you have pretty good injection support for resteasy. > > Run the demo in [1] to see it in action and look at the file at [6]. > > > > Resteasy-CDI isn't standard, it only works with Resteasy. If we rely on > it then we re tied to Resteasy for ever. > > > Even jersey has support for that (I think it is called jeryse-gf-cdi), > but why would we want switch? I don't think that jboss will drop > resteasy and it also works fine outside of full blown containers. I > don't think that this is an argument. > Well, nobody thought that JBoss would drop Tomcat, and they did. Nobody thought that Resteasy would change the SPI from 2.x to 3.x, and they did.\ It will be there for the next year or another library which offers the same thing. Having injections in Jax-rs resources is important for spring, jboss, glassfish and others there will always be ways to do that. I don't know why we should create our own 'custom standard' just because another standard does not include dependency injection when we can just extend it so easily.

We want (well, I want) to get out of JAX-RS because it doesn't support well CDI and streaming. Why should streaming resources be in the rest interface?

> > > > > > > * Add support for multiple versions of the API, using the "Version" > > header, and generating different Java classes for entities and services. > > For example, if we have versions 4 and 5 of the model as separate > > artifacts, then we can generate "V4Vm" and "V5Vm" entity classes, and > > "V4VmService" and "V5VmService" service classes. These can be used > > simultaneously in the server, so we can have in the same engine > > implementations for multiple versions. > > > > > > There are also many ways to do that. Here [7] is a pretty clean way to > > do it with jax-rs and you will have everything related in one resource. > > > > Yes, there are many ways. In my opinion it is better to use the HTTP > "Version" header, and to forward requests to different resource > implementations without requiring different URLs or different > content types. > > Have no strong opinion there, just seemed to be a good choice regarding > to versioning limitations in jax-rs and our use of jax-rs subresources. > > > > > > > > The final picture isn't completely defined yet. > > > > Regards, > > Juan Hernandez > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Juan Hernández <jhernand(a)redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com> <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com>> > <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com> <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com>>> > > > <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com> <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com>> > <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com> <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com <mailto:jhernand@redhat.com>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I will soon merge the following patches that introduce a new > > way to > > > specify the contracts of the RESTAPI: > > > > > > restapi: Introduce metamodel > > > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/45852 > > > > > > restapi: Use metamodel > > > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/46478 > > > > > > restapi: Generate JAX-RS interfaces from model > > > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/47337 > > > > > > > > > > > Looks pretty much like we are replacing one way of > annotating things > > > with another way of specifying things. > > > Could you elaborate what the benefit of that way of > description is? > > > > > > How would I customize endpoints with e.g. @Gzip annotations? > Would > > I at > > > the end still have my JAX-RS annotates resource classes? > > > > > > > > > These patches introduce a new "metamodel" concept, and move > > the current > > > specification of the RESTAPI based on XML schema and JAX-RS > > interfaces > > > to a new "model" built on the new metamodel. > > > > > > > > > What does this mean for you in practical terms? > Currently when > > you want > > > to introduce or modify one of the data types used by the > > RESTAPI you > > > start by modifying the XML schema. Once the patches are > merged > > the XML > > > schema will never be touched, as it will be automatically > > generated from > > > the "model". For example, imagine that you need to add a new > > "color" > > > attribute to the "VM" entity. To do so with the new > model you > > will have > > > to modify the following file, which is the specification of > > the "Vm" > > > entity, written as a Java interface: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/46478/16/backend/manager/modules/restapi/mod... > > > > > > In that interface you will have to add a line like this: > > > > > > String color(); > > > > > > Note that this Java interface is just the specification > of the > > entity, > > > it won't be used at all during runtime. Instead of that the > > XML schema > > > will be generated from it, and then Java will be generated > > from the XML > > > schema, as we do today (this will change in the future, but > > not yet). > > > > > > Same for the services. If you want to add a new "paint" > action > > to the > > > "Vm" resource then you won't modify the JAX-RS interfaces, > > instead of > > > that you will modify the following file, which is the > > specification of > > > the "Vm" service, written as a Java interface: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/47337/6/backend/manager/modules/restapi/mode... > > > > > > In that interface you will need to add a sub-interface > > representing the > > > action: > > > > > > interface Paint { > > > } > > > > > > The JAX-RS interface will be generated from that. > Currently these > > > sub-interfaces are empty. In the future they will > contain the > > > specifications of the parameters (currently in the > > rsdl_metadata.yml > > > file). > > > > > > > > > > > > These changes will currently affect only the > specification of the > > > RESTAPI, not the implementation, so in in the > > "Backend*Resource" classes > > > things won't change yet. > > > > > > > > > Currently I do not really understand where we are going > here. Are we > > > trying to get rid of rdsl? > > > > > > So basically two questions: > > > > > > 1) What is the final goal? > > > 2) What speaks agains using Hibernate validator on Daos in > combination > > > with JAX-RS annotated resources (and just removing all > interfaces, as > > > far as I can see we only have one implementation per > endpoint) and > > > creating all schemas and clients through SWAGGER tooling? > > > > > > > > > If you have doubts, please let me know. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Juan Hernandez > > > > > > -- > > > Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. > Gorbea 3, > > planta > > > 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain > > > Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - > > Red Hat > > > S.L. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Devel mailing list > > > Devel(a)ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org> <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org>> > <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org> <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org>>> > > <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org> <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org>> > <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org> <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org>>>> > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Roman > > > > > > -- > > Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, > planta > > 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain > > Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - > Red Hat > > S.L. > > > > > > > > I don't know if it is the right thing to do to invent something new > > here. I personally would prefer to thread a path which is very > common on > > the java community. > > I would love follow the DRY principle regarding to the stack and the > > code and would just use the great community projects there. > > > > It would also completely eliminate any custom magic. The JAX-RS > and CDI > > magic is pretty standard and easy to understand. > > From my perspective, real JAX-RS resoures have the advantage of > > > > * being very easy to understand (there is magic, but the > connection to > > the real endpoint is pretty clear) > > * being easy to customize suff, like adding @GZip to an annotation > > * describing pretty clearly the connection between the generated rest > > interface and the internal services > > > > Finally writing hand crafted tests is also much easier. > > > > What are your thoughts about that? > > > > Best Regards, > > Roman > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/rmohr/jetty-maven-cdi-demo > > [2] > > > https://github.com/rmohr/jetty-maven-cdi-demo/blob/master/src/main/java/r... > > [3] http://swagger.io/ > > [4] https://github.com/kongchen/swagger-maven-plugin > > [5] https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-codegen > > [6] > > > https://github.com/rmohr/jetty-maven-cdi-demo/blob/master/src/main/java/r... > > [7] > > > http://maxenglander.com/2013/04/23/basic-restful-api-versioning-in-jersey... > > [8] https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-ui > > > > [9] > https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-core/blob/master/modules/swagger-j... >