THIS IS A TEST INSTANCE. ALL YOUR CHANGES WILL BE LOST!!!!
ClassLoader Isolation
To be Reviewed By: 13 Mar 2020
Authors: Udo Kohlmeyer
Status: Draft Draft | Discussion | Active | Dropped | Superseded
Superseded by: N/A
...
Apache Geode uses many libraries and frameworks to complete features. These libraries will be on the classpath for global access within the JVM using a global Java ClassLoader (default behavior). Apache Geode has the ability to run custom code deployed onto the server-side. This means that logic that requires data can be run where the data is located, which results into in potentially faster response times, as there are less fewer network hop hops and serialization steps required to complete a single operation. Writing custom code allows users to tailor-make their logic to solve their problemproblems. This code can use either the libraries that Apache Geode has available on its classpath OR deploy the libraries that the code requires to complete the functionality. In the latter scenario, it is possible that the custom deployed code requires/uses libraries that are conflicting in version or implementation with the libraries that Apache Geode uses. A prime example of this is Apache Geode Management's use of the Spring Framework.
In order older versions of Apache Geode, the bundled Spring Framework version was on v4.3.x. Which meant that any user that wanted to use Spring in their custom code would be restricted to using that version. Manually upgrading the a Spring Framework version higher, like v5.x, could result in version conflicts in either the custom deployed code, Apache Geode, or in both. In all cases, this is undesirable behavior that is unwarranted.
Without a solution that does not restrict users on framework and versions, it will be impossible for users to most effectively use Apache Geode to their advantage. It also adds an extra burden on the Apache Geode system to always be up-to-date with all the latest versions of libraries, but also have tested with many different combinations of library versions. This of course is an impossible feat, which would result in always being on the wrong version than compared to what the custom code required. i.e Apache Geode has upgraded to the latest version of libraryA (v2.0) but the custom deployed code is reliant on (v1.0) OR vice versa. One cannot keep everybody happy!!!
What is required is the ability to deploy custom code, that functions as expected (and tested externally) and that does not affect the Apache Geode core system or breaks break in an unexpected manner due to version conflicts. The ability to deploy custom code with the freedom to use whatever libraries/frameworks and versions of those without any restriction. The expected behavior should be similar to a Web Container or Application Container. Where , where the web/application does not affect the container system that and is runs or is not affected by the libraries that the container system uses.
...
This proposal is aimed at ONLY solving/resolving problems that one is faced with when deploying custom code, into Apache Geode, and use using any library/framework or version that one chooses without affecting the core Apache Geode system or without being affected by the libraries/framework that Apache Geode uses.
This proposal is not there to help define how to modularize one's code (as per the related reading) or any other approaches (like API/SPI) to simplifying simplify code and implementation.
Solution
...
- ClassLoader Isolation
- Module Code visibility
- Library and Framework usage freedom
- Usage of different versions of code and libraries in the JVM at the same time
- Simplified modular experience w.r.t modular code deployment maintenance
...
| draw.io Diagram | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The initial bootstrapping implementation is "simple".
There will be two bootstrapping options:
- Using the current class loading mechanism
- Using the new JBoss module loading system to achieve ClassLoader isolation
The determination of the bootstrapping type will be done in GFSH using an "--enable-classloader-isolation" flag. This flag will instruct GFSH to either use the current class loading mechanism or use the class loader isolated mechanism.
The biggest change that will be visible will be when opting into using the JBoss Modules class loading. The initial targeted implementation would be the `gfsh deploy jar' .
| draw.io Diagram | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The deploy function initiated by running `deploy --jar` from gfsh will trigger the JarDeploymentService to register the module with the DeploymentService using the uploaded JAR file. This is done by the JAR file being placed in a known location on disk.
The DeploymentService will create a JBoss Module module, with the jar as a resource and The deployment of custom code, like gfsh deploy jar, will be handled by the ModuleService. The ModuleService will load the deployed jar into its own ClassLoader with a dependency on the Apache Geode system. That way the The DeploymentService will then interact with the GeodeModuleLoader to load the jar into its own module and Classloader.
The deployed custom code will still have access to the Apache Geode's public API'sAPIs, but without being exposed to not its libraries.
Changes and Additions to Public Interfaces
If you are proposing to add or modify public interfaces, those changes should be outlined here in detail.
Performance Impact
Gliffy Diagram macroId 47113394-4357-4196-b05e-18686ebe5381 displayName ClassDiagram - ModuleService name ClassDiagram - ModuleService pagePin 8
Performance Impact
No anticipated performance impact.Do you anticipate the proposed changes to impact performance in any way? Are there plans to measure and/or mitigate the impact?
Backwards Compatibility and Upgrade Path
Will the regular rolling upgrade process work with these changes?
How do the proposed changes impact backwards-compatibility? Are message or file formats changing?
Is there a need for a deprecation process to provide an upgrade path to users who will need to adjust their applications?
Prior Art
No backward compatibility impact.
No public APIs being changed
Deploying of jars might have a small change in behavior. The initial implementation might require the user to deploy a fully built jar, not part-jars where the sum of the jars make up a whole. Upgrading of libraries will result in the old jar being undeployed and the new one deployed in its place.
Prior Art
An alternative to this solution is to either leave the ClassLoader model as it is currently working in Geode. Whilst the current approach has a notion of ClassLoader isolation, the user will still be limited to the versions of the libraries that Apache Geode chooses to use.What would be the alternatives to the proposed solution? What would happen if we don’t solve the problem? Why should this proposal be preferred?
FAQ
Answers to questions you’ve commonly been asked after requesting comments for this proposal.
...