osdir.com

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A "Kamel" crazy idea


I've pushed a branch with graalvm experiments.
   https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/graalvm
In order to build the project, you need to use the GraalVM jdk and use the
following ~/.m2/toolchains.xml adapted to your path:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF8"?>

<toolchains>

  <toolchain>

    <type>jdk</type>

    <provides>

      <version>1.0.0-rc4</version>

      <vendor>oracle</vendor>

      <id>graalvm-ee-1.0.0-rc4</id>

    </provides>

    <configuration>


<jdkHome>/Users/gnodet/Downloads/graalvm-ee-1.0.0-rc4/Contents/Home/</jdkHome>

    </configuration>

  </toolchain>

</toolchains>

Build and run:
 gnodet•camel*(*graalvm*)*» cd platforms/graalvm
 gnodet•camel/platforms/graalvm*(*graalvm*)*» mvn install
...
 gnodet•camel/platforms/graalvm*(*graalvm*)*»
./example/target/org.apache.camel.graalvm.main

[main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Apache Camel
2.23.0-SNAPSHOT (CamelContext: camel-1) is starting

[main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - StreamCaching is
not in use. If using streams then its recommended to enable stream caching.
See more details at http://camel.apache.org/stream-caching.html

[main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Total 0 routes, of
which 0 are started

[main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Apache Camel
2.23.0-SNAPSHOT (CamelContext: camel-1) started in 0.006 seconds

 Guillaume

Le mar. 31 juil. 2018 à 09:44, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

>
>
> Le lun. 30 juil. 2018 à 17:49, Nicola Ferraro <ni.ferraro@xxxxxxxxx> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi Cameleers,
>> it seems from the comments that this "Kamel" subproject is something we
>> want to start and I think that also the main camel core will benefit from
>> the new features it will bring.
>>
>> I would like to donate the current "Kamel" code to Apache Camel, in order
>> to have a initial brick to start from.
>>
>> From your reactions, the name "Kamel" seems cool and I'd like to keep it.
>> However if you talk to people about the "Kamel" project, they won't
>> understand if you're talking about "Kamel with the K" or "Camel with the
>> C".
>> For this reasons I propose to keep "Kamel", but also use "Camel K" [ˈkæməl
>> keɪ] as friendly name when talking about it. This is in line with the
>> repository we should create for the subproject, that needs to start with
>> "camel-" (it will be "apache/camel-k" in that case).
>>
>> These days I've been experimenting different ideas with Luca Burgazzoli.
>> In
>> particular, there have been some concerns here on the power of a
>> declarative DSL (a new one or the existing XML one) and we've found a
>> strategy that will allow us to use also the Java DSL in Kamel
>> integrations.
>> Without adding too many details here, at integration build time we can run
>> the user code in a build container and inspect the produced routes to get
>> metadata for the optimizer. This is one of the first things we should do
>> next.
>>
>> This possibility of running code that produces integrations opened a lot
>> of
>> unexpected paths, that I've written down in the project roadmap (
>> https://github.com/nicolaferraro/integration-operator) and summarized
>> below.
>>
>> One nice feature (kudos to Luca) is that we can simplify life for Kamel
>> users up to the point that they'll just need to write their routes on a
>> Java file and run them with e.g.:
>> "kamel run Routes.java"
>>
>> Where "kamel" is a binary we release within the project. Kubernetes custom
>> resources will be used under the hood, but the "kamel" binary is a utility
>> that will provide a user experience comparable to that of current
>> serverless platforms (or even better).
>>
>> But there's not just that.
>>
>> Luca wrote this weekend a prototype for having a polyglot Camel (
>> https://github.com/lburgazzoli/camel-routes-loader).
>>
>> With that, you will be able to e.g. write integrations in groovy and use
>> the same Kamel engine:
>> "kamel run routes.groovy"
>>
>> But also JavaScript:
>>
>> https://github.com/lburgazzoli/camel-routes-loader/blob/ca986541f7c422ee02c21727cdfe4293d64a364e/src/test/resources/ext/camel/routes.js#L2
>>
>> This is a prototype right now, but a similar approach based on GraalVM has
>> a lot of potential, because users can not only use their preferred
>> language
>> to write routes and processors, but also bind them to functionalities
>> available in their preferred libraries.
>>
>> How much this will be feasible depends on the adoption of GraalVM, but I'm
>> seeing many frameworks adding metadata to make GraalVM work with
>> reflection. We've also done some work in Camel, there are some Jiras for
>> it
>> and first tests made by Guillaume signal that it's something feasible, at
>> least for the Camel core and a subset of components. GraalVM would be
>> important also to reduce memory footprint and improve startup time, as
>> already said.
>>
>
> I'll continue experimenting and I'll report back.
> I did some initial experiments leveraging some modifications I did  to
> speed up the start up time [1] and on a single route [2].
> There may be some limitations down the road of course, but at least it
> shows that it's feasible. Fwiw, the experiments lead to a startup time of
> 14 ms compared to a few hundreds milliseconds (roughly 680 with [1]).
>
>
>>
>> If the GraalVM approach works (it is working for other frameworks),
>> instead
>> of rewriting a subset of Camel in Go (as the original proposal mentions),
>> we can just sanitize and recompile our existing codebase: this way we
>> fully
>> leverage the strength of Apache Camel.
>>
>
> Right, if we can avoid rewriting Camel, that would be much better !
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-12688
> [2]
> https://github.com/gnodet/openwhisk-runtime-camel/blob/master/camel-openwhisk-example/src/main/java/org/jboss/fuse/openwhisk/camel/example/SimpleCamelFunction.java
>
>
>>
>> Another important thing in the roadmap is actually how we'll integrate
>> with
>> current FaaS platforms. We will evaluate together if it's better to have a
>> tighter integration with some of them or to leverage knative for some
>> aspects of Kamel...
>>
>> But, let's get started!
>>
>> Il 19 lug 2018 10:45, "Nicola Ferraro" <ni.ferraro@xxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>>
>> It's clear to me that we need to add support for our existing XML DSL,
>> that
>> is powerful. But there are multiple reasons why I'd like to also "add" a
>> limited yaml/json notation to "Kamel".
>>
>> The first one (and simplest) is that json/yaml is the primary encoding for
>> all resources exchanged with the Kubernetes API server. I'm not saying
>> that
>> for this reason the Integration resource cannot contain a XML
>> (/Java/Ballerina) section, but from a pure presentational point of view,
>> having the possibility to write simple use cases (even a "hello world") in
>> pure json/yaml is better than always requiring a mix of json and XML.
>>
>> The second one is simplicity. Writing a optimizer (the module that
>> materializes the integration into running code, choosing a specific
>> runtime
>> and configuration) for a turing-complete language like Java is not easy:
>> even if you manage to create a good parser, it may be able to do
>> optimizations only if you write routes in a particular way, without
>> complex
>> constructs.
>> XML is ok from this point of view. The thing is that both json/yaml and
>> XML
>> are just two different ways to serialize object trees, that can be then
>> statically analyzed.
>> The point is not XML vs json/yaml, it's more about tailoring a new
>> minimalistic DSL to the emerging use cases vs proposing "only" our classic
>> way of writing integrations. I think XML can be the "advanced" way. We can
>> experiment optimizations easily with the new DSL, and enable them also on
>> XML if it's worth.
>>
>> Scripting should be part of the spec, but I'd try to use programming
>> languages only for processing/transformation, not for the route
>> definition.
>>
>> Third one is performance. Apart from the fact that json parsers are in
>> general said to be faster than XML parsers... Given the "fast startup"
>> target that we want to reach, we may think e.g. to translate the new DSL
>> into Java or Go code, then compiling it. This allows doing parsing at
>> build
>> time in order to avoid it on startup. This kind of improvements are much
>> easier with a limited DSL but much more difficult with a existing
>> fully-fledged DSL..
>>
>> Nicola
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:51 PM Pontus Ullgren <ullgren@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I also like the idea but with some comments.
>> >
>> > As Hiram Chirino I'm not sure YAML/JSON is the best language for this.
>> > Perhaps a more fluent DSL like the Camel Java DSL or perhaps something
>> like
>> > Ballerina language would be better suited ?
>> > Also in my experience even simple integrations, that is simple real
>> world
>> > integration and not just hello world demos, requires
>> > you to add one or more Java class or scripting in addition to the core
>> > components. So for it to be useful there must be some way to add custom
>> > code in some way for aggregation/enrichment strategies.
>> >
>> > If you go with a GO implementation I would also like some fallback for
>> > using Java since I find it unlikely that the existing base of components
>> > will be ported any time soon.
>> >
>> > As for the name as other I like the "Kamel"  name however a being a
>> newborn
>> > kotlin fan I know of one pre-existing project with that name
>> > that is close enough to allow for potential confusion.
>> > https://github.com/topicusoverheid/kamel
>> >
>> > Looking forward to see the result.
>> >
>> > // Pontus
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 15:15 Hiram Chirino <hiram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Love the idea.
>> > >
>> > > Personally, I'd keep using the existing Camel XML DSL if possible.
>> You
>> > can
>> > > still embed it in the CRD.  The operator that deploys it could
>> inspect it
>> > > and figure whats the most optimized runtime that can support the DSL.
>> > > Perhaps if it's only using the restricted set of camel components
>> > supported
>> > > by camel-go (https://github.com/lburgazzoli/camel-go) then is uses
>> that.
>> > > Otherwise it falls back to using camel spring boot.
>> > >
>> > > For that to work I think we need the different runtime
>> implementations to
>> > > provide a way to ask them: 'hey do you support running this camel
>> route?'
>> > > Not a trivial thing to respond to, it might require a build step in
>> there
>> > > for traditional Camel runtimes.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:32 AM Antonin Stefanutti <
>> > antonin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Nicola,
>> > > >
>> > > > I love the idea.
>> > > >
>> > > > I just wonder whether YAML/JSON is an expressive enough format in
>> the
>> > > long
>> > > > term. But as you’ve mentioned, starting simple would enable
>> > experimenting
>> > > > some very interesting / promising optimisations. So it seems worth
>> > taking
>> > > > that path, instead of trying to embed a complex DSL or the existing
>> XML
>> > > DSL
>> > > > into the CRD.
>> > > >
>> > > > Definitely +1
>> > > >
>> > > > > On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:30, Nicola Ferraro <ni.ferraro@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hi Cameleers,
>> > > > > it's now passed some time since I started thinking about a new
>> > project
>> > > > that
>> > > > > we can begin here at Apache Camel, and I'd like to have your
>> opinion.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We've already been targeting cloud-native applications with Camel,
>> > > > > especially on top of Kubernetes, that is becoming "the standard"
>> > cloud
>> > > > > platform. But writing a Camel integration and running it on
>> > Kubernetes
>> > > > > requires some effort: choosing the base platform (spring-boot,
>> karaf,
>> > > > > simple main?), adding health checks (actuator?), packaging a
>> docker
>> > > image
>> > > > > and creating the Kubernetes resources (fabric8-maven-plugin,
>> helm?),
>> > > > > publishing the image on a docker registry, then finally deploying
>> the
>> > > > > resources on a Kubernetes cluster.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The resulting integration container is then far from being optimal
>> > > from a
>> > > > > resource consumption point of view: it is likely that a Camel
>> > > Spring-Boot
>> > > > > application will require at least 200MB of RAM and also some CPU
>> > shares
>> > > > > because of polling threads used by many components.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In case people use a CI/CD pipeline, it will take also a long
>> time to
>> > > get
>> > > > > from a code update to having a Kubernetes POD up and running.
>> > > > > Apart from compilation and image push/pull time, also startup
>> time is
>> > > > often
>> > > > > ~10 seconds for Camel + Spring-Boot in a container with standard
>> > limits
>> > > > on
>> > > > > resources, making it difficult to propose this combination for
>> > > > "serverless
>> > > > > integration" (this term is becoming increasingly more popular).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So, my proposal is to start to investigate a "more cloud-native"
>> > > approach
>> > > > > to integration: *making Camel integrations first-class citizens in
>> > > > > Kubernetes, and making them super fast and lightweight.*
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We can base the project on Kubernetes Custom Resource Definitions
>> > (CRD)
>> > > > > <
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/api-extension/custom-resources/
>> > > > >,
>> > > > > for example a Integration CRD and have a Kubernetes "operator"
>> > > > > <https://coreos.com/operators/> taking care of:
>> > > > > - Optimizing the integration that we want to run
>> > > > > - Packaging in a container
>> > > > > - Running it on Kubernetes
>> > > > > - Managing its entire lifecycle
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A Kubernetes-native integration may look like:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -------------------
>> > > > > kind: "Integration"
>> > > > > apiVersion: "camel.apache.org/v1alpha1"
>> > > > > metadata:
>> > > > > name: "example"
>> > > > > spec:
>> > > > > replicas: 1
>> > > > > routes:
>> > > > >  - id: timer
>> > > > >    route:
>> > > > >     - type: endpoint
>> > > > >       uri: timer:tick
>> > > > >     - type: endpoint
>> > > > >       uri: log:info
>> > > > > -------------------
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For those who are not familiar with Kubernetes resources, this
>> kind
>> > of
>> > > > > YAML/JSON resource definitions are really common.
>> > > > > The example route is embedded in the Kubernetes resource
>> declaration
>> > > and
>> > > > > follows a basic "flow DSL". We may start from a basic one and
>> evolve
>> > it
>> > > > as
>> > > > > new requirements arrive from the community.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I've made a very simple (but working) POC here:
>> > > > > https://github.com/nicolaferraro/integration-operator.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This idea of a "Cloud-Native Camel" on Kubernetes (project
>> codename
>> > can
>> > > > be "
>> > > > > *Kamel*", if you like it :D), will be an enabler for a lot of nice
>> > > > features.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For example, we can propose "Kamel" as "ideal" platform for
>> > "serverless
>> > > > > integration" (I see many people reinventing the wheel out there):
>> the
>> > > > > operator can reduce resource consumption of a single integration
>> by
>> > > > > optimizing the runtime and also pause/resume integrations when
>> they
>> > are
>> > > > not
>> > > > > used, that is the basic idea behind "serverless" (e.g. think to
>> > > > > HTTP-triggered integrations, but not only).
>> > > > > Focusing on serverless will bring more emphasis on push-based
>> > > > notifications
>> > > > > (webhooks, cloud events <https://cloudevents.io/>), that are
>> rarely
>> > > > used in
>> > > > > Camel components, that prefer a poll based approach being it
>> simpler
>> > to
>> > > > use
>> > > > > in classic deployments, but not so good in the cloud, where more
>> > > > resources
>> > > > > become higher direct costs for the users.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The presence of the simplified DSL enables also experimenting on
>> > > > "*reduced*
>> > > > > subsets of Camel" implemented in languages other than Java, for
>> > example
>> > > > one
>> > > > > language that has a reactive approach on thread scheduling and a
>> > really
>> > > > low
>> > > > > memory footprint, like Go.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > But apart from this kind of experiments (that are valid IMO), the
>> > > "Kamel"
>> > > > > optimizer will have free room to choose the right platform for the
>> > > > > integration that the user wants to run, including, in the future,
>> > doing
>> > > > AOT
>> > > > > compilation using Graal/VM (less memory, faster startup) if the
>> > > features
>> > > > > (components) used in the integration are supporting it (maybe we
>> can
>> > > add
>> > > > > AOT compilation in the roadmap for Camel 3).
>> > > > > A silly optimization: integrations starting from "timer:..." may
>> be
>> > > > > scheduled directly with Kubernetes CronJobs, so they will consume
>> > > > resources
>> > > > > only when actually running.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Being the final integrations lightweight and being the DSL
>> > > > > language-independent, we may see a increased adoption of Camel
>> also
>> > as
>> > > > > agile integration layer for not-only-java applications (both
>> "cloud"
>> > > and
>> > > > > "serverless" applications).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm the first one that would like to work on a project ilke this.
>> > I've
>> > > > > worked on many Kubernetes/Openshift based applications and
>> frameworks
>> > > in
>> > > > > the past years, also on operators and CRDs, and I think this way
>> of
>> > > > > redesigning integrations has a lot of potential.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Integrations will not be necessarily limited to the simplified
>> DSL,
>> > but
>> > > > we
>> > > > > can add extension points for scripting and even custom libraries
>> > > > (although
>> > > > > limiting the freedom of the optimizer).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The most important thing: it may become a great project, since
>> it's
>> > > > driven
>> > > > > by a great community.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So, what do you think? Is it crazy enough?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Nicola
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Hiram Chirino
>> > > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > > hchirino@xxxxxxxxxx | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>
>

-- 
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet