osdir.com

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

Re: A "Kamel" crazy idea


That’s very nice start, thx Guillaume

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 20:15, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>
-- 
--
Luca Burgazzoli