[Pulp-dev] Proposal: merge the content-app & streamer

[Brian Bouterse]

I've heard a lot of positive feedback on this idea and no objections. I
made this story tracking this threads proposal specifically [0] and I made
it a subtask of the lazy epic [1]. My next step to finish the streamer is
to work on [0] so I've taken that as assigned. I'll reply to the list when
the next round of PRs are posted and passing in Travis. Hopefully that
should complete most of the work for the lazy epic [1].

[0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4239
[1]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3693

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> Since no one is objecting, I'd like to see the PR[0] from @bmbouter
> finished up and merged soon. I am updating the pass-through cache story[1]
> to get it ready for implementation. I would like to remove all mention of
> separate content app and streamer from the description.
>
>
> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3779
> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3894
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:54 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to merge
>> +1 to have clear docs for plugin writers how to create their own content
>> app
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:25 PM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It was pointed out on IRC that plugins that have to supply their own
>>> content app (such as docker) currently need to supply 2 implementations of
>>> it in order to support on-demand use cases. One using django and another
>>> using aiohttp.
>>>
>>> We should not burden plugin writers in such a way. We really have to
>>> make the proposed change.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:24 PM Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In light of the efficiency gains and lack of significant drawbacks, I'm
>>>> +1 on this proposal.
>>>>
>>>> --Dana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dana Walker
>>>>
>>>> Associate Software Engineer
>>>>
>>>> Red Hat
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>> <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:40 PM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea of combining the two applications for all the reasons
>>>>> already outlined on this thread. The user experience is going to be
>>>>> simplified by this change. However, I want to point out that it will also
>>>>> alter the plugin writer experience. Plugin writers that want to have their
>>>>> own content app will now need to provide it as a plugin for the content app
>>>>> (which is not a Django project). We should be able to clearly document this
>>>>> for plugin writers. pulp_docker plugin will need to adopt this change. For
>>>>> that reason I'd like us to make a decision on this soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 4:59 PM Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *BACKGROUND*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The pulp3 content app and the streamer (in-progress) currently have a
>>>>>> lot of duplicate code and functionality.  At the very least, I think there
>>>>>> is a opportunity to refactor both and share code.  But, this would leave us
>>>>>> with two components with significant overlap in functionality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The functionality exclusive to the content-app:
>>>>>>   - Optionally delegate file serving to a web server. (Eg:
>>>>>> mod_xsendfile).
>>>>>>   - Optional redirect to the streamer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The functionality exclusive to the streamer:
>>>>>>   - Using the Remote & RemoteArtifact to download the file and stream
>>>>>> on demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not much difference which raises the question: "Why do we have
>>>>>> both?"  I think the answer may be that we don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *PROPOSAL*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's pull the content-app out and merge it with the streamer.  The
>>>>>> new content (app) would have *streamer* architecture &
>>>>>> functionality.  When a requested artifact has not been downloaded, it would
>>>>>> download/streamed instead of REDIRECT.  This does mean that deployments and
>>>>>> development environments would need to run an additional service to serve
>>>>>> content.  The /pulp/content endpoint would be on a different port than the
>>>>>> API.  I see this separation as a healthy thing.  There is significant
>>>>>> efficiency to be gained as well.  Let's start with eliminating the
>>>>>> REDIRECTs.  Cutting the GET requests in half is a win for both the client,
>>>>>> the network and the Pulp web stack.  Next is database queries.  Since both
>>>>>> applications needed to perform many of the same queries, combining the
>>>>>> applications will roughly cut them in half as well.  Since the streamer is
>>>>>> based on asyncio and so would the merged app.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are probably lots of other pros/cons I have not considered but
>>>>>> it seems relatively straight forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking the new content app/service would be named:
>>>>>> *pulp-content*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20181206/622088d6/attachment.htm>