----- Original Message -----
From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com> To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org>, "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com>, "Michael Pasternak" <mpastern@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:00:25 PM Subject: Re: Using REST API in web UI - review call summary
On 11/21/2013 11:56 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com> To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs@redhat.com>, "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Cc: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:25:04 PM Subject: Re: Using REST API in web UI - review call summary
On 11/21/2013 11:18 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
Hi guys,
this is a summary of yesterday's review call, I'll try to highlight important Q/A and things we agreed on. Feel free to add anything in case I've missed something.
--
Q: Why don't we simply try to use existing Java SDK and adapt it for GWT apps? (asked by Michael & Gilad)
A: This might be a viable option to consider if we wanted to skip JavaScript-based SDK altogether and target Java/GWT code directly; we could simply take Java SDK and customize its abstractions where necessary, i.e. using HTTP transport layer implementation that works with GWT. In any case, this would mean coupling ourselves to Java SDK (which has its own release cycle) and I think this would complicate things for us.
As proposed on the meeting, I think it's best to aim for JavaScript SDK as the lowest common denominator for *any* web application that wants to work with REST API. oVirt GWT-based UI can simply bind to JavaScript SDK, i.e. Java/GWT code that just overlays objects and functions provided by JavaScript SDK. Another reason is ease of maintenance - I'd rather see JavaScript SDK's code generation process to be independent of any other SDK (people responsible for maintaining JavaScript SDK should have full control over generated code).
--
Q: What about functionality currently used by oVirt UI but not supported by REST API? (asked by Einav) [For example, fetching VM entity over GWT RPC also returns related data such as Cluster name.]
A: Based on discussion I've had with other colleagues after yesterday's review call, I don't think that separate support-like backend layer is a good idea. Instead, this is the kind of functionality that could be placed in oVirt.js library. Logical operations like "get VMs and related data" would be exposed through oVirt.js (callback-based) API and ultimately realized as multiple physical requests to REST API via JavaScript Binding.
oVirt.js client would be completely oblivious to the fact that multiple physical requests are dispatched. In fact, since HTTP communication is asynchronous in nature, oVirt.js client wouldn't even notice any difference in terms of API consumption. This assumes JavaScript SDK would use callback-based (non-blocking) API instead of blocking one - after all, blocking API on top of non-blocking implementation sounds pretty much like leaky abstraction [1].
For example:
sdk.getVmsWithExtraData( callbackToGetExtraDataForGivenVm, // might cause extra physical requests to REST API callbackFiredWhenAllDataIsReady // update client only when all data is ready )
would this also resolve RunMultipleActions?
Yes, I think so. There could be API to pass multiple "actions" and get notified when they complete.
sounds like no reason to have RunMultipleQueries, although i'm still sure a single call to engine for multiple keys would be much more efficient than multiple async calls? (I understand we may not be able to model this).
Efficiency-wise, yes, single call to get all data seems optimal. API-wise, I don't think it really matters from oVirt.js client perspective.
We can proceed with simple (possibly inefficient) solution and improve as needed. We're making baby steps now..
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_abstraction
--
Last but not least, where to maintain JavaScript SDK projects: low-level JavaScript Binding + high-level oVirt.js library.
I agree that conceptually both above mentioned projects should go into dedicated "ovirt-engine-sdk-js" git repository and have their own build/release process. However, for now, we're just making baby steps so let's keep things simple and prototype these projects as part of "ovirt-engine" git repository.
... we can complicate things anytime, but we should know that any complex system that works has inevitably evolved from simple system that works ... (quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%27s_law)
I think the entities should just be generated from the xsd.
+1
The JavaScript Binding (aka low-level SDK) module should follow same concepts as existing Java SDK - generated entities decorated with operations to form fluent API.
Everything Java SDK currently offers should be available in JavaScript Binding. oVirt.js is our opportunity to build on top of that.
for the rsdl, makes sense to start with clean code to see what works best, then see about generating it (but you should adhere the rsdl as guidlines i guess).
+1
The initial prototype should be written by hand, things will get generated as soon as we have better idea how the end result should look like.
i can understand that for the methods and maybe for populating the entities for the first few. the entities themselves, no point in hand coding - just generated them from the api.xsd. and once you decide how you want to fill them, not worth hand coding this - either json gives this out of the box, or should be generated as well.
OK, now I get you :) sure, entities aren't too interesting by themselves, but populating (decorating) them is something that requires more thought.
lets try to plan for lightweight entities while at it - the API has a mechanism for different level of details - maybe we need a custom level where the client specifies which fields they want back or something like that.
Good idea! We should definitely think about the granularity of entities.
I didn't know REST API supports different level of detail per entity, is there some documentation for this feature?
Since JavaScript is dynamic, one possible solution would be to let client define the entity structure (i.e. what data client needs) on the fly, during runtime :)
michael?
Good luck, Itamar