On 06/27/2014 08:15 AM, Wen Wang wrote: > Dear all, > * > **Problems:* > Now our strategy for long time operation is using task which the > browser needs to check up-to-date task status time by time until the > task ends. It's time consuming and less efficient. Also there exists > several problems when locating each task when doing debug generating > and storage pool as well as some new features that might use task > strategy in the future. > > *Solution*: > As talked with Sheldon and Zhengsheng, we came up with a solution > that avoid browser checking status every 200ms. Also, we might need > some more labels in each task to provide more information when > getting the task like we might need to indicate which operation > triggered certain task. What's in our mind is to use the strategy > that allow the server inform browser about the task information. Our > proposal is designed as follows. > > 1) Browser needs to register to the back end to indicate which part > the result needs to reply to when the task finished. > 2) The back end use broker to manage message distribution: when a > task is finished or experiencing an error, back end inform the > browser certain part of work is finished or error. > 3) Using websocket of cherrypy to accomplish the message transfer. > +1 We just need more details to accomplish that Can we do it in 3 weeks (1 sprint)? or 1 sprint for backend and other one for the frontend?

> Best Regards > > Wang Wen > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Kimchi-devel mailing list > Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel

On 7/2/2014 10:04 AM, Aline Manera wrote: > > On 06/27/2014 08:15 AM, Wen Wang wrote: >> Dear all, >> * >> **Problems:* >> Now our strategy for long time operation is using task which the >> browser needs to check up-to-date task status time by time until the >> task ends. It's time consuming and less efficient. Also there exists >> several problems when locating each task when doing debug generating >> and storage pool as well as some new features that might use task >> strategy in the future. >> >> *Solution*: >> As talked with Sheldon and Zhengsheng, we came up with a solution >> that avoid browser checking status every 200ms. Also, we might need >> some more labels in each task to provide more information when >> getting the task like we might need to indicate which operation >> triggered certain task. What's in our mind is to use the strategy >> that allow the server inform browser about the task information. Our >> proposal is designed as follows. >> >> 1) Browser needs to register to the back end to indicate which part >> the result needs to reply to when the task finished. >> 2) The back end use broker to manage message distribution: when a >> task is finished or experiencing an error, back end inform the >> browser certain part of work is finished or error. >> 3) Using websocket of cherrypy to accomplish the message transfer. >> > > +1 > > We just need more details to accomplish that > Can we do it in 3 weeks (1 sprint)? or 1 sprint for backend and other > one for the frontend? We discussed today.It depends on how much we want to use this new feature. Though it's a good feature, we might need to redesign all task in the back-end and might need a new tab in the front which indicates user what kind of message they want to register.

Also just for the task issue, simply we might just need to add some pairs of keys that provide more information of the task so that the browser will identify which user is running which tasks, in which case, we still need the browser check over and over again whether one task is finished. We might need to discuss more about this issue and if we want a new design of the message deliver, it might need more time for both the back-end and the front-end work for a long time since there hardly exist one good solution for that. We need to design all my our own. And for the task improvement proposal, it should be a much more quick job. Best Regards Wang Wen > >> Best Regards >> >> Wang Wen >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kimchi-devel mailing list >> Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel >

On 07/02/2014 06:31 AM, Wen Wang wrote: > On 7/2/2014 10:04 AM, Aline Manera wrote: >> >> On 06/27/2014 08:15 AM, Wen Wang wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> * >>> **Problems:* >>> Now our strategy for long time operation is using task which the >>> browser needs to check up-to-date task status time by time until the >>> task ends. It's time consuming and less efficient. Also there exists >>> several problems when locating each task when doing debug generating >>> and storage pool as well as some new features that might use task >>> strategy in the future. >>> >>> *Solution*: >>> As talked with Sheldon and Zhengsheng, we came up with a solution >>> that avoid browser checking status every 200ms. Also, we might need >>> some more labels in each task to provide more information when >>> getting the task like we might need to indicate which operation >>> triggered certain task. What's in our mind is to use the strategy >>> that allow the server inform browser about the task information. Our >>> proposal is designed as follows. >>> >>> 1) Browser needs to register to the back end to indicate which part >>> the result needs to reply to when the task finished. >>> 2) The back end use broker to manage message distribution: when a >>> task is finished or experiencing an error, back end inform the >>> browser certain part of work is finished or error. >>> 3) Using websocket of cherrypy to accomplish the message transfer. >>> >> >> +1 >> >> We just need more details to accomplish that >> Can we do it in 3 weeks (1 sprint)? or 1 sprint for backend and other >> one for the frontend? > We discussed today.It depends on how much we want to use this new > feature. Though it's a good feature, we might need to redesign all > task in the back-end and might need a new tab in the front which > indicates user what kind of message they want to register. A new tab to register for messages?? I don't think so. The frontend (ie, our JS code) should be enough expert to do it by itself. It should not require any user interaction.

> Also just for the task issue, simply we might just need to add some > pairs of keys that provide more information of the task so that the > browser will identify which user is running which tasks, in which > case, we still need the browser check over and over again whether one > task is finished. > > We might need to discuss more about this issue and if we want a new > design of the message deliver, it might need more time for both the > back-end and the front-end work for a long time since there hardly > exist one good solution for that. We need to design all my our own. > And for the task improvement proposal, it should be a much more quick job. > > Best Regards > > Wang Wen >> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Wang Wen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Kimchi-devel mailing list >>> Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel >> > _______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel

On 06/27/2014 07:15 PM, Wen Wang wrote: > Dear all, > * > **Problems:* > Now our strategy for long time operation is using task which the > browser needs to check up-to-date task status time by time until the > task ends. It's time consuming and less efficient. Also there exists > several problems when locating each task when doing debug generating > and storage pool as well as some new features that might use task > strategy in the future. > > *Solution*: > As talked with Sheldon and Zhengsheng, we came up with a solution > that avoid browser checking status every 200ms. Also, we might need > some more labels in each task to provide more information when > getting the task like we might need to indicate which operation > triggered certain task. What's in our mind is to use the strategy > that allow the server inform browser about the task information. Our > proposal is designed as follows. > > 1) Browser needs to register to the back end to indicate which part > the result needs to reply to when the task finished. > 2) The back end use broker to manage message distribution: when a > task is finished or experiencing an error, back end inform the > browser certain part of work is finished or error. > 3) Using websocket of cherrypy to accomplish the message transfer. Now let me elaborate above. For Browser, it can be an event loop worker. It can subscribe event message that users care to the back end broker. listen the events from the broker and take some action for the event. For back: The broker should collect and store the events from everywhere. The broker should dispatch the message to the client who subscribes it. For some event, broker should determined whether it should dispatch to user. Such a VM shutdown event, the broker just send it to the user who has the access permission. (Yu Xing's suggestion) We had better define the event message format. We had better to find an existing python lib for it. If no we should code it for ourself. [ client1 ] care VM | ^ libvirt event -------------\ shutdown | | VM shutdown \ V | event 1 -------- -------------------------->[ broker ] / ^ | dispatch event 2 ------------/ | | subscribe | V listen [ client2 ] For websocket: There's also an issue about it. https://github.com/kimchi-project/kimchi/issues/22 The websocket is the pipe to connect the broker of the UI event worker. We should support websocket proxying directly from the cherrypy server on its given port. Zheng Sheng is working on it. It can work on cherrypy. Seems something wrong with nginx.

> > Best Regards > > Wang Wen > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Kimchi-devel mailing list > Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel -- Thanks and best regards! Sheldon Feng(???)<shaohef(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center

For this RFC, we are trying to create a *generic message notification component* to handle *long task*. I do not think any new tab is needed for message subscribe configuration. If this long task is at console admin level(host/template/network/storage pool), I recommend to share this message among all *root* users. If this long task is at VM level, only *VM users* got this message. The task should be identified by the uri(web api) that triggered it.

On 6/27/2014 7:15 PM, Wen Wang wrote: > Dear all, > * > **Problems:* > Now our strategy for long time operation is using task which the > browser needs to check up-to-date task status time by time until the > task ends. It's time consuming and less efficient. Also there exists > several problems when locating each task when doing debug generating > and storage pool as well as some new features that might use task > strategy in the future. > > *Solution*: > As talked with Sheldon and Zhengsheng, we came up with a solution > that avoid browser checking status every 200ms. Also, we might need > some more labels in each task to provide more information when > getting the task like we might need to indicate which operation > triggered certain task. What's in our mind is to use the strategy > that allow the server inform browser about the task information. Our > proposal is designed as follows. > > 1) Browser needs to register to the back end to indicate which part > the result needs to reply to when the task finished. > 2) The back end use broker to manage message distribution: when a > task is finished or experiencing an error, back end inform the > browser certain part of work is finished or error. > 3) Using websocket of cherrypy to accomplish the message transfer. > > Best Regards > > Wang Wen > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Kimchi-devel mailing list > Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel _______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel

On 7/3/2014 6:06 PM, Yu Xin Huo wrote: > For this RFC, we are trying to create a *generic message notification > component* to handle *long task*. > > I do not think any new tab is needed for message subscribe configuration. > > If this long task is at console admin > level(host/template/network/storage pool), I recommend to share this > message among all *root* users. > If this long task is at VM level, only *VM users* got this message. > > The task should be identified by the uri(web api) that triggered it. +1

From what I understand, only messages attached to kimchi tasks are going

> > On 6/27/2014 7:15 PM, Wen Wang wrote: >> Dear all, >> * >> **Problems:* >> Now our strategy for long time operation is using task which the >> browser needs to check up-to-date task status time by time until the >> task ends. It's time consuming and less efficient. Also there exists >> several problems when locating each task when doing debug generating >> and storage pool as well as some new features that might use task >> strategy in the future. >> >> *Solution*: >> As talked with Sheldon and Zhengsheng, we came up with a solution >> that avoid browser checking status every 200ms. Also, we might need >> some more labels in each task to provide more information when >> getting the task like we might need to indicate which operation >> triggered certain task. What's in our mind is to use the strategy >> that allow the server inform browser about the task information. Our >> proposal is designed as follows. >> >> 1) Browser needs to register to the back end to indicate which part >> the result needs to reply to when the task finished. >> 2) The back end use broker to manage message distribution: when a >> task is finished or experiencing an error, back end inform the >> browser certain part of work is finished or error. >> 3) Using websocket of cherrypy to accomplish the message transfer. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Wang Wen >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kimchi-devel mailing list >> Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Kimchi-devel mailing list > Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel _______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel

On 07/03/2014 07:06 AM, Yu Xin Huo wrote: > For this RFC, we are trying to create a *generic message notification > component* to handle *long task*. > > I do not think any new tab is needed for message subscribe > configuration. > > If this long task is at console admin > level(host/template/network/storage pool), I recommend to share this > message among all *root* users. > If this long task is at VM level, only *VM users* got this message. > > The task should be identified by the uri(web api) that triggered it. +1 About the design, to accomplish that will we use websocket or broker or ..?

> > On 6/27/2014 7:15 PM, Wen Wang wrote: >> Dear all, >> * >> **Problems:* >> Now our strategy for long time operation is using task which the >> browser needs to check up-to-date task status time by time until the >> task ends. It's time consuming and less efficient. Also there exists >> several problems when locating each task when doing debug generating >> and storage pool as well as some new features that might use task >> strategy in the future. >> >> *Solution*: >> As talked with Sheldon and Zhengsheng, we came up with a solution that >> avoid browser checking status every 200ms. Also, we might need some >> more labels in each task to provide more information when getting the >> task like we might need to indicate which operation triggered certain >> task. What's in our mind is to use the strategy that allow the server >> inform browser about the task information. Our proposal is designed as >> follows. >> >> 1) Browser needs to register to the back end to indicate which part >> the result needs to reply to when the task finished. >> 2) The back end use broker to manage message distribution: when a task >> is finished or experiencing an error, back end inform the browser >> certain part of work is finished or error. >> 3) Using websocket of cherrypy to accomplish the message transfer. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Wang Wen >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kimchi-devel mailing list >> Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Kimchi-devel mailing list > Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel > _______________________________________________ Kimchi-devel mailing list Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel

On 06/27/2014 07:15 PM, Wen Wang wrote: > Dear all, > * > **Problems:* > Now our strategy for long time operation is using task which the > browser needs to check up-to-date task status time by time until the > task ends. It's time consuming and less efficient. Also there exists > several problems when locating each task when doing debug generating > and storage pool as well as some new features that might use task > strategy in the future. > > *Solution*: > As talked with Sheldon and Zhengsheng, we came up with a solution > that avoid browser checking status every 200ms. Also, we might need > some more labels in each task to provide more information when > getting the task like we might need to indicate which operation > triggered certain task. What's in our mind is to use the strategy > that allow the server inform browser about the task information. Our > proposal is designed as follows. > > 1) Browser needs to register to the back end to indicate which part > the result needs to reply to when the task finished. > 2) The back end use broker to manage message distribution: when a > task is finished or experiencing an error, back end inform the > browser certain part of work is finished or error. > 3) Using websocket of cherrypy to accomplish the message transfer. Now let me elaborate above. For Browser, it can be an event loop worker. It can subscribe event message that users care to the back end broker. listen the events from the broker and take some action for the event. For back: The broker should collect and store the events from everywhere. The broker should dispatch the message to the client who subscribes it. For some event, broker should determined whether it should dispatch to user. Such a VM shutdown event, the broker just send it to the user who has the access permission. (Yu Xing's suggestion) We had better define the event message format. We had better to find an existing python lib for it. If no we should code it for ourself. [ client1 ] care VM | ^ libvirt event -------------\ shutdown | | VM shutdown \ V | event 1 -------- -------------------------->[ broker ] / ^ | dispatch event 2 ------------/ | | subscribe | V listen [ client2 ] For websocket: There's also an issue about it. https://github.com/kimchi-project/kimchi/issues/22 The websocket is the pipe to connect the broker of the UI event worker. We should support websocket proxying directly from the cherrypy server on its given port. Zheng Sheng is working on it. It can work on cherrypy. Seems something wrong with nginx. > > Best Regards > > Wang Wen > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Kimchi-devel mailing list > Kimchi-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel -- Thanks and best regards! Sheldon Feng(???)<shaohef(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center