Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

rfscholte
If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no dependency on Maven.
And looking at https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics [https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics]
This looks a lot like https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics [https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics]

So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?

thanks,
Robert
On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello community,
I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the implementation
of Maven Runtime Metrics.

This is the JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899

It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics

In order to move forward I have to create an independent module/git
repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this is not
good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently from the
version of Maven Core.
When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the data will be
simply ignored.

My plan:
- create a git repository
- put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put there a simple
implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the first release)
- release it to the public
- use it in Maven 3.7
- use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting" modules/core
plugins

Best regards
Enrico
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Enrico Olivelli
Robert

Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

Yes it is really better.

We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on which we will
depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
It is better to not depend on third party.

There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.

The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation that uses
micro profile. But we must be independent.

Enrico



> thanks,
> Robert
> On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello community,
> I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the implementation
> of Maven Runtime Metrics.
>
> This is the JIRA
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
>
> It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
>
> In order to move forward I have to create an independent module/git
> repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this is not
> good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently from the
> version of Maven Core.
> When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the data will be
> simply ignored.
>
> My plan:
> - create a git repository
> - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put there a simple
> implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the first release)
> - release it to the public
> - use it in Maven 3.7
> - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting" modules/core
> plugins
>
> Best regards
> Enrico
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Slawomir Jaranowski
Hi,
In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own api when
similar api is already ready and maintained.

There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we can see it is
a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks  on github
https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer

Please consider similar situation with logging api used in maven, we have
different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven core, ...
and now slf4j is try to replace old

  Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?

sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> napisał(a):

> Robert
>
> Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no dependency on
> Maven.
> > And looking at
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > [
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > ]
> > This looks a lot like
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > [
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > ]
> >
> > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> >
>
> Yes it is really better.
>
> We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on which we will
> depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> It is better to not depend on third party.
>
> There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
>
> The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation that uses
> micro profile. But we must be independent.
>
> Enrico
>
>
>
> > thanks,
> > Robert
> > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello community,
> > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the implementation
> > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> >
> > This is the JIRA
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> >
> > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> >
> > In order to move forward I have to create an independent module/git
> > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this is not
> > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently from the
> > version of Maven Core.
> > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the data will
> be
> > simply ignored.
> >
> > My plan:
> > - create a git repository
> > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put there a simple
> > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the first
> release)
> > - release it to the public
> > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting" modules/core
> > plugins
> >
> > Best regards
> > Enrico
> >
>


--
Sławomir Jaranowski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> Hi,
> In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own api when
> similar api is already ready and maintained.
>
> There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we can see it is
> a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks  on github
> https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
>
> Please consider similar situation with logging api used in maven, we have
> different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven core, ...
> and now slf4j is try to replace old
>
>   Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
>

Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so it is key to
create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on vendors.
Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause they broke
the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the microprofile
contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad choice).
This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want while fully
isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader (otherwise it
will conflict for sure).


>
> sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
>
> > Robert
> >
> > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha
> scritto:
> >
> > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no dependency on
> > Maven.
> > > And looking at
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > [
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > ]
> > > This looks a lot like
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > [
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > ]
> > >
> > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > >
> >
> > Yes it is really better.
> >
> > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on which we will
> > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > It is better to not depend on third party.
> >
> > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> >
> > The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation that uses
> > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> > > thanks,
> > > Robert
> > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hello community,
> > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the
> implementation
> > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > >
> > > This is the JIRA
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > >
> > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > >
> > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent module/git
> > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this is not
> > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently from the
> > > version of Maven Core.
> > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the data will
> > be
> > > simply ignored.
> > >
> > > My plan:
> > > - create a git repository
> > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put there a
> simple
> > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the first
> > release)
> > > - release it to the public
> > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting"
> modules/core
> > > plugins
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

rfscholte
Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this, having our own seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face similar issues where the API needs adjustments.
So lets create the maven-metrics git repository


There are a few things I want to address:
- Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
- Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we should assume these are never null
- Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods were introduced to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract. I already expected patterns to appear where default methods would replace abstract classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have consensus that we can do this.

thanks,
Robert
 
On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
écrit :

> Hi,
> In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own api when
> similar api is already ready and maintained.
>
> There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we can see it is
> a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
>
> Please consider similar situation with logging api used in maven, we have
> different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven core, ...
> and now slf4j is try to replace old
>
> Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
>

Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so it is key to
create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on vendors.
Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause they broke
the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the microprofile
contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad choice).
This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want while fully
isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader (otherwise it
will conflict for sure).


>
> sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
>
> > Robert
> >
> > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> scritto:
> >
> > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no dependency on
> > Maven.
> > > And looking at
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > [
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > ]
> > > This looks a lot like
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > [
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > ]
> > >
> > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > >
> >
> > Yes it is really better.
> >
> > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on which we will
> > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > It is better to not depend on third party.
> >
> > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> >
> > The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation that uses
> > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> > > thanks,
> > > Robert
> > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > Hello community,
> > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the
> implementation
> > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > >
> > > This is the JIRA
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > >
> > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > >
> > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent module/git
> > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this is not
> > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently from the
> > > version of Maven Core.
> > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the data will
> > be
> > > simply ignored.
> > >
> > > My plan:
> > > - create a git repository
> > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put there a
> simple
> > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the first
> > release)
> > > - release it to the public
> > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting"
> modules/core
> > > plugins
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 10:54, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this, having our own
> seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face similar issues
> where the API needs adjustments.
> So lets create the maven-metrics git repository
>
>
+1


>
> There are a few things I want to address:
> - Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
> - Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we should assume
> these are never null
> - Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods were introduced
> to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract. I already
> expected patterns to appear where default methods would replace abstract
> classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have consensus that
> we can do this.
>

+1 to never abuse default methods to do abstract classes (breaks not asm
proxies for ex).


>
> thanks,
> Robert
>
> On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
> écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> > In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own api when
> > similar api is already ready and maintained.
> >
> > There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we can see it
> is
> > a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> > https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
> >
> > Please consider similar situation with logging api used in maven, we have
> > different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven core, ...
> > and now slf4j is try to replace old
> >
> > Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
> >
>
> Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so it is key to
> create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on vendors.
> Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause they broke
> the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the microprofile
> contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad choice).
> This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want while fully
> isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader (otherwise it
> will conflict for sure).
>
>
> >
> > sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
> >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> > scritto:
> > >
> > > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no dependency on
> > > Maven.
> > > > And looking at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > [
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > ]
> > > > This looks a lot like
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > [
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > ]
> > > >
> > > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes it is really better.
> > >
> > > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on which we
> will
> > > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > > It is better to not depend on third party.
> > >
> > > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> > >
> > > The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation that
> uses
> > > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Robert
> > > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > Hello community,
> > > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the
> > implementation
> > > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > > >
> > > > This is the JIRA
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > > >
> > > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > > >
> > > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent module/git
> > > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this is
> not
> > > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently from
> the
> > > > version of Maven Core.
> > > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the data
> will
> > > be
> > > > simply ignored.
> > > >
> > > > My plan:
> > > > - create a git repository
> > > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put there a
> > simple
> > > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the first
> > > release)
> > > > - release it to the public
> > > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting"
> > modules/core
> > > > plugins
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sławomir Jaranowski
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Enrico Olivelli
In reply to this post by rfscholte
Robert

Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 10:54 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this, having our own
> seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face similar issues
> where the API needs adjustments.
> So lets create the maven-metrics git repository
>


Shall I do it by myself or do I need help from a PMC?

For JIRA I think we can keep using Maven core project

>
>
> There are a few things I want to address:
> - Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
>
Okay

> - Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we should assume
> these are never null
>
Okay

> - Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods were introduced
> to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract. I already
> expected patterns to appear where default methods would replace abstract
> classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have consensus that
> we can do this.
>

I will think more about this

Thanks
Enrico


> thanks,
> Robert
>
> On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
> écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> > In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own api when
> > similar api is already ready and maintained.
> >
> > There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we can see it
> is
> > a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> > https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
> >
> > Please consider similar situation with logging api used in maven, we have
> > different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven core, ...
> > and now slf4j is try to replace old
> >
> > Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
> >
>
> Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so it is key to
> create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on vendors.
> Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause they broke
> the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the microprofile
> contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad choice).
> This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want while fully
> isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader (otherwise it
> will conflict for sure).
>
>
> >
> > sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
> >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> > scritto:
> > >
> > > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no dependency on
> > > Maven.
> > > > And looking at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > [
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > ]
> > > > This looks a lot like
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > [
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > ]
> > > >
> > > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes it is really better.
> > >
> > > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on which we
> will
> > > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > > It is better to not depend on third party.
> > >
> > > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> > >
> > > The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation that
> uses
> > > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Robert
> > > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > Hello community,
> > > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the
> > implementation
> > > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > > >
> > > > This is the JIRA
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > > >
> > > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > > >
> > > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent module/git
> > > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this is
> not
> > > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently from
> the
> > > > version of Maven Core.
> > > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the data
> will
> > > be
> > > > simply ignored.
> > > >
> > > > My plan:
> > > > - create a git repository
> > > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put there a
> > simple
> > > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the first
> > > release)
> > > > - release it to the public
> > > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting"
> > modules/core
> > > > plugins
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sławomir Jaranowski
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Enrico Olivelli
Robert
Maybe I was misunderstood.
We need a new repo only for the Metrics API.

Maven core (3.7?) provides the noop implementation.

Implementations of MetricsProvider will be extensions. I feel it is better
that we don't deal with implementations as a first step.
I will leave a couple of implementations in my personal repo.

Enrico


Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 22:51 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
> On 9-5-2020 17:58:47, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Robert
>
> Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 10:54 Robert Scholte ha scritto:
>
> > Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this, having our own
> > seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face similar issues
> > where the API needs adjustments.
> > So lets create the maven-metrics git repository
> >
>
>
> Shall I do it by myself or do I need help from a PMC?
>
> For JIRA I think we can keep using Maven core project
> Robert Scholte:
> No, I'll create a separate project for it too. This extension will have
> its own lifecycle, unrelated to the Maven lifecycle (and it won't be
> bundled)
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > There are a few things I want to address:
> > - Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
> >
> Okay
>
> > - Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we should assume
> > these are never null
> >
> Okay
>
> > - Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods were
> introduced
> > to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract. I already
> > expected patterns to appear where default methods would replace abstract
> > classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have consensus
> that
> > we can do this.
> >
>
> I will think more about this
>
> Thanks
> Enrico
>
>
> > thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> > On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own api when
> > > similar api is already ready and maintained.
> > >
> > > There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we can see it
> > is
> > > a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> > > https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
> > >
> > > Please consider similar situation with logging api used in maven, we
> have
> > > different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven core,
> ...
> > > and now slf4j is try to replace old
> > >
> > > Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
> > >
> >
> > Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so it is key
> to
> > create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on vendors.
> > Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause they broke
> > the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the microprofile
> > contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad choice).
> > This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want while
> fully
> > isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader (otherwise
> it
> > will conflict for sure).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> > > scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no dependency
> on
> > > > Maven.
> > > > > And looking at
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > [
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > ]
> > > > > This looks a lot like
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > [
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > ]
> > > > >
> > > > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes it is really better.
> > > >
> > > > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on which we
> > will
> > > > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > > > It is better to not depend on third party.
> > > >
> > > > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> > > >
> > > > The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation that
> > uses
> > > > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > Robert
> > > > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > Hello community,
> > > > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the
> > > implementation
> > > > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the JIRA
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > > > >
> > > > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent module/git
> > > > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this is
> > not
> > > > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently from
> > the
> > > > > version of Maven Core.
> > > > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the data
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > simply ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > My plan:
> > > > > - create a git repository
> > > > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put there a
> > > simple
> > > > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the first
> > > > release)
> > > > > - release it to the public
> > > > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting"
> > > modules/core
> > > > > plugins
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards
> > > > > Enrico
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sławomir Jaranowski
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 07:43, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Robert
> Maybe I was misunderstood.
> We need a new repo only for the Metrics API.
>
> Maven core (3.7?) provides the noop implementation.
>
> Implementations of MetricsProvider will be extensions. I feel it is better
> that we don't deal with implementations as a first step.
> I will leave a couple of implementations in my personal repo.
>

Think we need at least  a trivial memory impl with maybe a "log at
shutdown" feature otherwise it will not bring anything to end users


>
> Enrico
>
>
> Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 22:51 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> >
> > On 9-5-2020 17:58:47, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Robert
> >
> > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 10:54 Robert Scholte ha scritto:
> >
> > > Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this, having our
> own
> > > seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face similar
> issues
> > > where the API needs adjustments.
> > > So lets create the maven-metrics git repository
> > >
> >
> >
> > Shall I do it by myself or do I need help from a PMC?
> >
> > For JIRA I think we can keep using Maven core project
> > Robert Scholte:
> > No, I'll create a separate project for it too. This extension will have
> > its own lifecycle, unrelated to the Maven lifecycle (and it won't be
> > bundled)
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > There are a few things I want to address:
> > > - Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
> > >
> > Okay
> >
> > > - Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we should assume
> > > these are never null
> > >
> > Okay
> >
> > > - Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods were
> > introduced
> > > to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract. I already
> > > expected patterns to appear where default methods would replace
> abstract
> > > classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have consensus
> > that
> > > we can do this.
> > >
> >
> > I will think more about this
> >
> > Thanks
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> > > thanks,
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own api when
> > > > similar api is already ready and maintained.
> > > >
> > > > There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we can see
> it
> > > is
> > > > a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> > > > https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
> > > >
> > > > Please consider similar situation with logging api used in maven, we
> > have
> > > > different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven core,
> > ...
> > > > and now slf4j is try to replace old
> > > >
> > > > Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so it is key
> > to
> > > create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on
> vendors.
> > > Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause they
> broke
> > > the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the microprofile
> > > contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad choice).
> > > This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want while
> > fully
> > > isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader
> (otherwise
> > it
> > > will conflict for sure).
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no dependency
> > on
> > > > > Maven.
> > > > > > And looking at
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > [
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > ]
> > > > > > This looks a lot like
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > [
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes it is really better.
> > > > >
> > > > > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on which we
> > > will
> > > > > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > > > > It is better to not depend on third party.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> > > > >
> > > > > The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation
> that
> > > uses
> > > > > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enrico
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > > Hello community,
> > > > > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the JIRA
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent
> module/git
> > > > > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > > > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > version of Maven Core.
> > > > > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the
> data
> > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > simply ignored.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My plan:
> > > > > > - create a git repository
> > > > > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put there
> a
> > > > simple
> > > > > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the first
> > > > > release)
> > > > > > - release it to the public
> > > > > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > > > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting"
> > > > modules/core
> > > > > > plugins
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards
> > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sławomir Jaranowski
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Enrico Olivelli
Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 09:21 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> ha
scritto:

> Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 07:43, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
> > Robert
> > Maybe I was misunderstood.
> > We need a new repo only for the Metrics API.
> >
> > Maven core (3.7?) provides the noop implementation.
> >
> > Implementations of MetricsProvider will be extensions. I feel it is
> better
> > that we don't deal with implementations as a first step.
> > I will leave a couple of implementations in my personal repo.
> >
>
> Think we need at least  a trivial memory impl with maybe a "log at
> shutdown" feature otherwise it will not bring anything to end users
>


Yep

I have already implemented it :)


Robert,
I saw the github notification about the new two repositories

Thank you all


Enrico



>
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 22:51 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha
> scritto:
> >
> > >
> > > On 9-5-2020 17:58:47, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 10:54 Robert Scholte ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this, having our
> > own
> > > > seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face similar
> > issues
> > > > where the API needs adjustments.
> > > > So lets create the maven-metrics git repository
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Shall I do it by myself or do I need help from a PMC?
> > >
> > > For JIRA I think we can keep using Maven core project
> > > Robert Scholte:
> > > No, I'll create a separate project for it too. This extension will have
> > > its own lifecycle, unrelated to the Maven lifecycle (and it won't be
> > > bundled)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are a few things I want to address:
> > > > - Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
> > > >
> > > Okay
> > >
> > > > - Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we should
> assume
> > > > these are never null
> > > >
> > > Okay
> > >
> > > > - Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods were
> > > introduced
> > > > to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract. I
> already
> > > > expected patterns to appear where default methods would replace
> > abstract
> > > > classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have consensus
> > > that
> > > > we can do this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I will think more about this
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > > On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own api
> when
> > > > > similar api is already ready and maintained.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we can
> see
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> > > > > https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
> > > > >
> > > > > Please consider similar situation with logging api used in maven,
> we
> > > have
> > > > > different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven
> core,
> > > ...
> > > > > and now slf4j is try to replace old
> > > > >
> > > > > Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so it is
> key
> > > to
> > > > create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on
> > vendors.
> > > > Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause they
> > broke
> > > > the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the
> microprofile
> > > > contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad choice).
> > > > This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want while
> > > fully
> > > > isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader
> > (otherwise
> > > it
> > > > will conflict for sure).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > > scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no
> dependency
> > > on
> > > > > > Maven.
> > > > > > > And looking at
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > [
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > This looks a lot like
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > [
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes it is really better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on which
> we
> > > > will
> > > > > > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > > > > > It is better to not depend on third party.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation
> > that
> > > > uses
> > > > > > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello community,
> > > > > > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the JIRA
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent
> > module/git
> > > > > > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > > > > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but this
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > > version of Maven Core.
> > > > > > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the
> > data
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > simply ignored.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My plan:
> > > > > > > - create a git repository
> > > > > > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put
> there
> > a
> > > > > simple
> > > > > > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the
> first
> > > > > > release)
> > > > > > > - release it to the public
> > > > > > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > > > > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting"
> > > > > modules/core
> > > > > > > plugins
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards
> > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sławomir Jaranowski
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

rfscholte
sometimes code says more than a thousand words: can you share the changes in Maven Core you had in mind?
On 10-5-2020 12:07:33, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 11:53 Robert Scholte
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Maybe I'm still missing a detail, but this is what I had in mind:
> Maven already fires events.
>

Metrics are for a distinct use case.
Metrics are like Logs, the developer instruments its own code to have
important information available during the execution.
For instance you want to see the evolution of a cache, see how much it is
useful,
or you can instrument the HTTP client inside wagon to see how well the
network is performing.
Usually they are for fine grained instrumentation of hot points in code.
For instance you do not want to fire an event every time an entry of a
cache is evicted and expect some code to intercept that event.

Metrics are not extension points like current "events" mechanism.
The MetricsProvider will be an extension, in a way that it is separate from
Maven Core, it only provides the way to gather the information,
usually in form of time series and make it available to the tools (like
Dashboards, reports...).

Metrics will be useful for:
- Maven developers (core and plugins): see how well code behaves and where
it is better to put enhancements/optimizations
- Maven users: some of the metrics could be useful for users, especially
about the system in which Maven is executing (network, disk speed, usage of
memory during peaks....)
- Automatics tools, like Jenkins, to display information about the
execution of long running builds


Enrico





> The extension listens to these events and can do its metrics.
> I see no need for a hard coupling between these two.
>
> Robert
>
> On 10-5-2020 10:28:42, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 09:21 Romain Manni-Bucau ha
> scritto:
>
> > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 07:43, Enrico Olivelli a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Robert
> > > Maybe I was misunderstood.
> > > We need a new repo only for the Metrics API.
> > >
> > > Maven core (3.7?) provides the noop implementation.
> > >
> > > Implementations of MetricsProvider will be extensions. I feel it is
> > better
> > > that we don't deal with implementations as a first step.
> > > I will leave a couple of implementations in my personal repo.
> > >
> >
> > Think we need at least a trivial memory impl with maybe a "log at
> > shutdown" feature otherwise it will not bring anything to end users
> >
>
>
> Yep
>
> I have already implemented it :)
>
>
> Robert,
> I saw the github notification about the new two repositories
>
> Thank you all
>
>
> Enrico
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 22:51 Robert Scholte ha
> > scritto:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9-5-2020 17:58:47, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 10:54 Robert Scholte ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this, having
> our
> > > own
> > > > > seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face similar
> > > issues
> > > > > where the API needs adjustments.
> > > > > So lets create the maven-metrics git repository
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Shall I do it by myself or do I need help from a PMC?
> > > >
> > > > For JIRA I think we can keep using Maven core project
> > > > Robert Scholte:
> > > > No, I'll create a separate project for it too. This extension will
> have
> > > > its own lifecycle, unrelated to the Maven lifecycle (and it won't be
> > > > bundled)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a few things I want to address:
> > > > > - Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
> > > > >
> > > > Okay
> > > >
> > > > > - Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we should
> > assume
> > > > > these are never null
> > > > >
> > > > Okay
> > > >
> > > > > - Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods were
> > > > introduced
> > > > > to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract. I
> > already
> > > > > expected patterns to appear where default methods would replace
> > > abstract
> > > > > classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have
> consensus
> > > > that
> > > > > we can do this.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I will think more about this
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > > Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
> > > > > écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own api
> > when
> > > > > > similar api is already ready and maintained.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we can
> > see
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> > > > > > https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please consider similar situation with logging api used in maven,
> > we
> > > > have
> > > > > > different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven
> > core,
> > > > ...
> > > > > > and now slf4j is try to replace old
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so it is
> > key
> > > > to
> > > > > create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on
> > > vendors.
> > > > > Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause they
> > > broke
> > > > > the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the
> > microprofile
> > > > > contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad
> choice).
> > > > > This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want
> while
> > > > fully
> > > > > isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader
> > > (otherwise
> > > > it
> > > > > will conflict for sure).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no
> > dependency
> > > > on
> > > > > > > Maven.
> > > > > > > > And looking at
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > > [
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > This looks a lot like
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > > [
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes it is really better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on
> which
> > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > > > > > > It is better to not depend on third party.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The API itself is very small and we could add an implementation
> > > that
> > > > > uses
> > > > > > > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hello community,
> > > > > > > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the
> > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the JIRA
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent
> > > module/git
> > > > > > > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > > > > > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but
> this
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins independently
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > version of Maven Core.
> > > > > > > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of the
> > > data
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > simply ignored.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My plan:
> > > > > > > > - create a git repository
> > > > > > > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put
> > there
> > > a
> > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the
> > first
> > > > > > > release)
> > > > > > > > - release it to the public
> > > > > > > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > > > > > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other "interesting"
> > > > > > modules/core
> > > > > > > > plugins
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards
> > > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sławomir Jaranowski
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Enrico Olivelli
Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 13:42 Robert Scholte <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> sometimes code says more than a thousand words: can you share the changes
> in Maven Core you had in mind?
>

Maven Metrics Extensions API:
https://github.com/apache/maven-metric/blob/master/maven-metrics-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics/MetricsSystem.java
An Extension is expected to implement that Named component

Example implementation:
https://github.com/eolivelli/simplemavenmetrics/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics/SimpleMetricsSystem.java
This is mostly what Romain said, if you add this extension to your project
(and use Maven 3.7. from my branch on maven studies)
mvn -Dmetrics.dumpAtEnd=true verify
You will see the "final" values of every metric, it does not track any time
series

This is a sample instrumentation of Maven Core
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/344/files

I am not sure that those are the most interesting points but it is enough
to see interesting data on some project:
- time to resolve the pom
- time to resolve dependencies of plugins
- time to "install" an artifact locally
- time to perform the execution of each mojo

I wanted to instrument more components but I have to tweak Wagon and other
lower level external components

Enrico

On 10-5-2020 12:07:33, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 11:53 Robert Scholte
> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> > Maybe I'm still missing a detail, but this is what I had in mind:
> > Maven already fires events.
> >
>
> Metrics are for a distinct use case.
> Metrics are like Logs, the developer instruments its own code to have
> important information available during the execution.
> For instance you want to see the evolution of a cache, see how much it is
> useful,
> or you can instrument the HTTP client inside wagon to see how well the
> network is performing.
> Usually they are for fine grained instrumentation of hot points in code.
> For instance you do not want to fire an event every time an entry of a
> cache is evicted and expect some code to intercept that event.
>
> Metrics are not extension points like current "events" mechanism.
> The MetricsProvider will be an extension, in a way that it is separate from
> Maven Core, it only provides the way to gather the information,
> usually in form of time series and make it available to the tools (like
> Dashboards, reports...).
>
> Metrics will be useful for:
> - Maven developers (core and plugins): see how well code behaves and where
> it is better to put enhancements/optimizations
> - Maven users: some of the metrics could be useful for users, especially
> about the system in which Maven is executing (network, disk speed, usage of
> memory during peaks....)
> - Automatics tools, like Jenkins, to display information about the
> execution of long running builds
>
>
> Enrico
>
>
>
>
>
> > The extension listens to these events and can do its metrics.
> > I see no need for a hard coupling between these two.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > On 10-5-2020 10:28:42, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 09:21 Romain Manni-Bucau ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 07:43, Enrico Olivelli a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Robert
> > > > Maybe I was misunderstood.
> > > > We need a new repo only for the Metrics API.
> > > >
> > > > Maven core (3.7?) provides the noop implementation.
> > > >
> > > > Implementations of MetricsProvider will be extensions. I feel it is
> > > better
> > > > that we don't deal with implementations as a first step.
> > > > I will leave a couple of implementations in my personal repo.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Think we need at least a trivial memory impl with maybe a "log at
> > > shutdown" feature otherwise it will not bring anything to end users
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yep
> >
> > I have already implemented it :)
> >
> >
> > Robert,
> > I saw the github notification about the new two repositories
> >
> > Thank you all
> >
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 22:51 Robert Scholte ha
> > > scritto:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9-5-2020 17:58:47, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 10:54 Robert Scholte ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this, having
> > our
> > > > own
> > > > > > seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face
> similar
> > > > issues
> > > > > > where the API needs adjustments.
> > > > > > So lets create the maven-metrics git repository
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Shall I do it by myself or do I need help from a PMC?
> > > > >
> > > > > For JIRA I think we can keep using Maven core project
> > > > > Robert Scholte:
> > > > > No, I'll create a separate project for it too. This extension will
> > have
> > > > > its own lifecycle, unrelated to the Maven lifecycle (and it won't
> be
> > > > > bundled)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a few things I want to address:
> > > > > > - Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Okay
> > > > >
> > > > > > - Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we should
> > > assume
> > > > > > these are never null
> > > > > >
> > > > > Okay
> > > > >
> > > > > > - Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods were
> > > > > introduced
> > > > > > to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract. I
> > > already
> > > > > > expected patterns to appear where default methods would replace
> > > > abstract
> > > > > > classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have
> > consensus
> > > > > that
> > > > > > we can do this.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I will think more about this
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Enrico
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > > > Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
> > > > > > écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own
> api
> > > when
> > > > > > > similar api is already ready and maintained.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we
> can
> > > see
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> > > > > > > https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please consider similar situation with logging api used in
> maven,
> > > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api, maven
> > > core,
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > and now slf4j is try to replace old
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so it
> is
> > > key
> > > > > to
> > > > > > create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on
> > > > vendors.
> > > > > > Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause
> they
> > > > broke
> > > > > > the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the
> > > microprofile
> > > > > > contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad
> > choice).
> > > > > > This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want
> > while
> > > > > fully
> > > > > > isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader
> > > > (otherwise
> > > > > it
> > > > > > will conflict for sure).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no
> > > dependency
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Maven.
> > > > > > > > > And looking at
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > > > [
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > This looks a lot like
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > > > [
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes it is really better.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on
> > which
> > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > > > > > > > It is better to not depend on third party.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The API itself is very small and we could add an
> implementation
> > > > that
> > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hello community,
> > > > > > > > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for the
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is the JIRA
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent
> > > > module/git
> > > > > > > > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > > > > > > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core but
> > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins
> independently
> > > > from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > version of Maven Core.
> > > > > > > > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of
> the
> > > > data
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > simply ignored.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My plan:
> > > > > > > > > - create a git repository
> > > > > > > > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can put
> > > there
> > > > a
> > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for the
> > > first
> > > > > > > > release)
> > > > > > > > > - release it to the public
> > > > > > > > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > > > > > > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other
> "interesting"
> > > > > > > modules/core
> > > > > > > > > plugins
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards
> > > > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sławomir Jaranowski
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Enrico Olivelli
Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 17:49 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Hi Enrico,
>
> These could all be solved by firing events.
>

Yes
I see your point.
Unfortunately those are the first points that I have instrumented in order
to see some data.


> And there's another benefit: since there won't be an API, we don't need to
> maintain it,or be afraid of mistakes.
>

Exposed metrics won't be an API, or at least something to be maintained.
Each Maven version, component version, plugin version may expose any metric
is valuable for the component developer or for the users.

Exposed metrics are not an extension point, it is not expected that a
MetricsProvider is able to alter the behaviour of Maven.
Events/Extension point must be maintained forever, but you can drop/add a
metric at each release. They are very low level tracking points in code.

This is because I say that metrics are like loggers: you add logs where you
think it is useful, you can change log point at every version, there is not
strong contract with the user, logging implementation is totally pluggable.

The Metrics API is mostly the contract with Metrics Provider developers.
It will be very stable, I don't think there will be many changes in the mid
term.
It is only about the ability to give a name to counters, summaries and
gauges.

Having a simple implementation that dumps the final values at the end is
not the full power of this mechanism.

You can attach Prometheus or any other time series based metrics database
and see the evolution of the build, this will be very useful for long
running builds and especially on CI or during component development.

I will finish the implementation with Prometheus and try to create a
Grafana dashboard.

It would be super useful that some Maven-internals experts could suggest
useful values to track during the execution of the build.

I hope that explains better the value of the Metrics system.

Thank you Robert for your feedback and help

Enrico


To me this is the wrong approach to embed metrics.

>
> thanks,
> Robert
> On 10-5-2020 16:58:59, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 13:42 Robert Scholte <>
> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> > sometimes code says more than a thousand words: can you share the changes
> > in Maven Core you had in mind?
> >
>
> Maven Metrics Extensions API:
>
> https://github.com/apache/maven-metric/blob/master/maven-metrics-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics/MetricsSystem.java
> An Extension is expected to implement that Named component
>
> Example implementation:
>
> https://github.com/eolivelli/simplemavenmetrics/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics/SimpleMetricsSystem.java
> This is mostly what Romain said, if you add this extension to your project
> (and use Maven 3.7. from my branch on maven studies)
> mvn -Dmetrics.dumpAtEnd=true verify
> You will see the "final" values of every metric, it does not track any time
> series
>
> This is a sample instrumentation of Maven Core
> https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/344/files
>
> I am not sure that those are the most interesting points but it is enough
> to see interesting data on some project:
> - time to resolve the pom
> - time to resolve dependencies of plugins
> - time to "install" an artifact locally
> - time to perform the execution of each mojo
>
> I wanted to instrument more components but I have to tweak Wagon and other
> lower level external components
>
> Enrico
>
> On 10-5-2020 12:07:33, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 11:53 Robert Scholte
> > [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Maybe I'm still missing a detail, but this is what I had in mind:
> > > Maven already fires events.
> > >
> >
> > Metrics are for a distinct use case.
> > Metrics are like Logs, the developer instruments its own code to have
> > important information available during the execution.
> > For instance you want to see the evolution of a cache, see how much it is
> > useful,
> > or you can instrument the HTTP client inside wagon to see how well the
> > network is performing.
> > Usually they are for fine grained instrumentation of hot points in code.
> > For instance you do not want to fire an event every time an entry of a
> > cache is evicted and expect some code to intercept that event.
> >
> > Metrics are not extension points like current "events" mechanism.
> > The MetricsProvider will be an extension, in a way that it is separate
> from
> > Maven Core, it only provides the way to gather the information,
> > usually in form of time series and make it available to the tools (like
> > Dashboards, reports...).
> >
> > Metrics will be useful for:
> > - Maven developers (core and plugins): see how well code behaves and
> where
> > it is better to put enhancements/optimizations
> > - Maven users: some of the metrics could be useful for users, especially
> > about the system in which Maven is executing (network, disk speed, usage
> of
> > memory during peaks....)
> > - Automatics tools, like Jenkins, to display information about the
> > execution of long running builds
> >
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The extension listens to these events and can do its metrics.
> > > I see no need for a hard coupling between these two.
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > On 10-5-2020 10:28:42, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 09:21 Romain Manni-Bucau ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 07:43, Enrico Olivelli a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > Robert
> > > > > Maybe I was misunderstood.
> > > > > We need a new repo only for the Metrics API.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maven core (3.7?) provides the noop implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Implementations of MetricsProvider will be extensions. I feel it is
> > > > better
> > > > > that we don't deal with implementations as a first step.
> > > > > I will leave a couple of implementations in my personal repo.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Think we need at least a trivial memory impl with maybe a "log at
> > > > shutdown" feature otherwise it will not bring anything to end users
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep
> > >
> > > I have already implemented it :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert,
> > > I saw the github notification about the new two repositories
> > >
> > > Thank you all
> > >
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Enrico
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 22:51 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9-5-2020 17:58:47, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 10:54 Robert Scholte ha scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this,
> having
> > > our
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face
> > similar
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > > where the API needs adjustments.
> > > > > > > So lets create the maven-metrics git repository
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shall I do it by myself or do I need help from a PMC?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For JIRA I think we can keep using Maven core project
> > > > > > Robert Scholte:
> > > > > > No, I'll create a separate project for it too. This extension
> will
> > > have
> > > > > > its own lifecycle, unrelated to the Maven lifecycle (and it won't
> > be
> > > > > > bundled)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are a few things I want to address:
> > > > > > > - Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we should
> > > > assume
> > > > > > > these are never null
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods were
> > > > > > introduced
> > > > > > > to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract. I
> > > > already
> > > > > > > expected patterns to appear where default methods would replace
> > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have
> > > consensus
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > we can do this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will think more about this
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > > > > Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
> > > > > > > écrit :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement own
> > api
> > > > when
> > > > > > > > similar api is already ready and maintained.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as we
> > can
> > > > see
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please consider similar situation with logging api used in
> > maven,
> > > > we
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api,
> maven
> > > > core,
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > and now slf4j is try to replace old
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why it is so important to you to be independent in this case?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so
> it
> > is
> > > > key
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend on
> > > > > vendors.
> > > > > > > Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice cause
> > they
> > > > > broke
> > > > > > > the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the
> > > > microprofile
> > > > > > > contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad
> > > choice).
> > > > > > > This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you want
> > > while
> > > > > > fully
> > > > > > > isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader
> > > > > (otherwise
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > will conflict for sure).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no
> > > > dependency
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > Maven.
> > > > > > > > > > And looking at
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > > > > [
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > This looks a lot like
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > > > > [
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes it is really better.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API on
> > > which
> > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > > > > > > > > It is better to not depend on third party.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The API itself is very small and we could add an
> > implementation
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > > > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hello community,
> > > > > > > > > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for
> the
> > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is the JIRA
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven studies.
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In order to move forward I have to create an independent
> > > > > module/git
> > > > > > > > > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > > > > > > > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core
> but
> > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins
> > independently
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > version of Maven Core.
> > > > > > > > > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all of
> > the
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > simply ignored.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My plan:
> > > > > > > > > > - create a git repository
> > > > > > > > > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can
> put
> > > > there
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > > > > > release)
> > > > > > > > > > - release it to the public
> > > > > > > > > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > > > > > > > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other
> > "interesting"
> > > > > > > > modules/core
> > > > > > > > > > plugins
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards
> > > > > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Sławomir Jaranowski
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Romain Manni-Bucau
Events vs metrics is an old topic.
The choice between both is not only design but also about perf. In terms of
design it brings the ability to export data without exposing it in code
(events are public). It also avoid to expose a stable api of events and
create coupling between plugin/exts and only require a single stable api
which is very minimal (lot of projects kept their metric abstraction
stable).

Typically wagon should export metrics but if you fire an event per download
progress it will be quite slow currently and you will allocate a lot of
objects (or create contentions) just to increase a monotonic counter (a
longadder concretely).

So I think Enrico is right and we cant avoid metrics (I have to admit
events are overcomplex to use for plugin/ext dev, see all profiling
extensions, not a single one works and report accurate data whereas metrics
can miss some drilldown data but would be right).

Now we can limit the surfacing api and start only by counters and gauges
maybe and later add histogram, meters etc only if needed (not sure for mvn).

Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 19:32, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 17:49 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hi Enrico,
> >
> > These could all be solved by firing events.
> >
>
> Yes
> I see your point.
> Unfortunately those are the first points that I have instrumented in order
> to see some data.
>
>
> > And there's another benefit: since there won't be an API, we don't need
> to
> > maintain it,or be afraid of mistakes.
> >
>
> Exposed metrics won't be an API, or at least something to be maintained.
> Each Maven version, component version, plugin version may expose any metric
> is valuable for the component developer or for the users.
>
> Exposed metrics are not an extension point, it is not expected that a
> MetricsProvider is able to alter the behaviour of Maven.
> Events/Extension point must be maintained forever, but you can drop/add a
> metric at each release. They are very low level tracking points in code.
>
> This is because I say that metrics are like loggers: you add logs where you
> think it is useful, you can change log point at every version, there is not
> strong contract with the user, logging implementation is totally pluggable.
>
> The Metrics API is mostly the contract with Metrics Provider developers.
> It will be very stable, I don't think there will be many changes in the mid
> term.
> It is only about the ability to give a name to counters, summaries and
> gauges.
>
> Having a simple implementation that dumps the final values at the end is
> not the full power of this mechanism.
>
> You can attach Prometheus or any other time series based metrics database
> and see the evolution of the build, this will be very useful for long
> running builds and especially on CI or during component development.
>
> I will finish the implementation with Prometheus and try to create a
> Grafana dashboard.
>
> It would be super useful that some Maven-internals experts could suggest
> useful values to track during the execution of the build.
>
> I hope that explains better the value of the Metrics system.
>
> Thank you Robert for your feedback and help
>
> Enrico
>
>
> To me this is the wrong approach to embed metrics.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Robert
> > On 10-5-2020 16:58:59, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 13:42 Robert Scholte <>
> > [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> > > sometimes code says more than a thousand words: can you share the
> changes
> > > in Maven Core you had in mind?
> > >
> >
> > Maven Metrics Extensions API:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-metric/blob/master/maven-metrics-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics/MetricsSystem.java
> > An Extension is expected to implement that Named component
> >
> > Example implementation:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/eolivelli/simplemavenmetrics/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics/SimpleMetricsSystem.java
> > This is mostly what Romain said, if you add this extension to your
> project
> > (and use Maven 3.7. from my branch on maven studies)
> > mvn -Dmetrics.dumpAtEnd=true verify
> > You will see the "final" values of every metric, it does not track any
> time
> > series
> >
> > This is a sample instrumentation of Maven Core
> > https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/344/files
> >
> > I am not sure that those are the most interesting points but it is enough
> > to see interesting data on some project:
> > - time to resolve the pom
> > - time to resolve dependencies of plugins
> > - time to "install" an artifact locally
> > - time to perform the execution of each mojo
> >
> > I wanted to instrument more components but I have to tweak Wagon and
> other
> > lower level external components
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > On 10-5-2020 12:07:33, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 11:53 Robert Scholte
> > > [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Maybe I'm still missing a detail, but this is what I had in mind:
> > > > Maven already fires events.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Metrics are for a distinct use case.
> > > Metrics are like Logs, the developer instruments its own code to have
> > > important information available during the execution.
> > > For instance you want to see the evolution of a cache, see how much it
> is
> > > useful,
> > > or you can instrument the HTTP client inside wagon to see how well the
> > > network is performing.
> > > Usually they are for fine grained instrumentation of hot points in
> code.
> > > For instance you do not want to fire an event every time an entry of a
> > > cache is evicted and expect some code to intercept that event.
> > >
> > > Metrics are not extension points like current "events" mechanism.
> > > The MetricsProvider will be an extension, in a way that it is separate
> > from
> > > Maven Core, it only provides the way to gather the information,
> > > usually in form of time series and make it available to the tools (like
> > > Dashboards, reports...).
> > >
> > > Metrics will be useful for:
> > > - Maven developers (core and plugins): see how well code behaves and
> > where
> > > it is better to put enhancements/optimizations
> > > - Maven users: some of the metrics could be useful for users,
> especially
> > > about the system in which Maven is executing (network, disk speed,
> usage
> > of
> > > memory during peaks....)
> > > - Automatics tools, like Jenkins, to display information about the
> > > execution of long running builds
> > >
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > The extension listens to these events and can do its metrics.
> > > > I see no need for a hard coupling between these two.
> > > >
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > > On 10-5-2020 10:28:42, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 09:21 Romain Manni-Bucau ha
> > > > scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 07:43, Enrico Olivelli a
> > > > > écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > Maybe I was misunderstood.
> > > > > > We need a new repo only for the Metrics API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maven core (3.7?) provides the noop implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Implementations of MetricsProvider will be extensions. I feel it
> is
> > > > > better
> > > > > > that we don't deal with implementations as a first step.
> > > > > > I will leave a couple of implementations in my personal repo.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Think we need at least a trivial memory impl with maybe a "log at
> > > > > shutdown" feature otherwise it will not bring anything to end users
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep
> > > >
> > > > I have already implemented it :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert,
> > > > I saw the github notification about the new two repositories
> > > >
> > > > Thank you all
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 22:51 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > > scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 9-5-2020 17:58:47, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Il Sab 9 Mag 2020, 10:54 Robert Scholte ha scritto:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Although I'm disappointed there's no spec group for this,
> > having
> > > > our
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > seems indeed the best choice, but here we will likely face
> > > similar
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > where the API needs adjustments.
> > > > > > > > So lets create the maven-metrics git repository
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shall I do it by myself or do I need help from a PMC?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For JIRA I think we can keep using Maven core project
> > > > > > > Robert Scholte:
> > > > > > > No, I'll create a separate project for it too. This extension
> > will
> > > > have
> > > > > > > its own lifecycle, unrelated to the Maven lifecycle (and it
> won't
> > > be
> > > > > > > bundled)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are a few things I want to address:
> > > > > > > > - Consider returning Optional when methods might return null.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Specify how to handle Collections and Maps, I think we
> should
> > > > > assume
> > > > > > > > these are never null
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Abstract classes versus default methods. Default methods
> were
> > > > > > > introduced
> > > > > > > > to extend existing interfaces without breaking the contract.
> I
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > > expected patterns to appear where default methods would
> replace
> > > > > > abstract
> > > > > > > > classes. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but just to have
> > > > consensus
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > we can do this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will think more about this
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 4-5-2020 17:00:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > > > > > Le lun. 4 mai 2020 à 16:55, Slawomir Jaranowski a
> > > > > > > > écrit :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > In my humble opinion it is not the best way to implement
> own
> > > api
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > similar api is already ready and maintained.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is another project used for metrics: micrometer, as
> we
> > > can
> > > > > see
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > a quite popular 2.3K stars, 500 forks on github
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please consider similar situation with logging api used in
> > > maven,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > different logging in plexus component, maven plugin api,
> > maven
> > > > > core,
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > and now slf4j is try to replace old
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why it is so important to you to be independent in this
> case?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cause none is stable and it will be user facing (mojo dev) so
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > key
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > create an API we - maven - can assume in time and not depend
> on
> > > > > > vendors.
> > > > > > > > Microprofile just proved it would have been a bad choice
> cause
> > > they
> > > > > > broke
> > > > > > > > the API quite drastically (I'm not blaming them, it is the
> > > > > microprofile
> > > > > > > > contract for now but at maven stage it would have been a bad
> > > > choice).
> > > > > > > > This is not a ton of API and impl can rely on anything you
> want
> > > > while
> > > > > > > fully
> > > > > > > > isolated (proxy on API?) from the mojo/extensions classloader
> > > > > > (otherwise
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > will conflict for sure).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sob., 2 maj 2020 o 15:20 Enrico Olivelli napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Il Sab 2 Mag 2020, 15:11 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If I take a look at the pom of maven-metrics, I see no
> > > > > dependency
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > Maven.
> > > > > > > > > > > And looking at
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > > > > > [
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics/maven-metrics/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/metrics
> > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > This looks a lot like
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > > > > > [
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-metrics/tree/master/api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/microprofile/metrics
> > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So do we need to maintain our own Metrics API?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes it is really better.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We will be in charge for this API, it will be a new API
> on
> > > > which
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > depend in many part of Maven core and in plugins.
> > > > > > > > > > It is better to not depend on third party.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There are other initiatives like microprofile metrics.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The API itself is very small and we could add an
> > > implementation
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > micro profile. But we must be independent.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2-5-2020 10:26:19, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello community,
> > > > > > > > > > > I am now ready to move forward with concrete steps for
> > the
> > > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > of Maven Runtime Metrics.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the JIRA
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6899
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It links to my proof-of-concept branch on maven
> studies.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/maven-studies/tree/maven-metrics
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In order to move forward I have to create an
> independent
> > > > > > module/git
> > > > > > > > > > > repository for the Maven Metrics Runtime API.
> > > > > > > > > > > Currently I have it on maven-studies inside Maven Core
> > but
> > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > good, because I would like to use it in Plugins
> > > independently
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > version of Maven Core.
> > > > > > > > > > > When you run the plugin on an old version of Maven all
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > simply ignored.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My plan:
> > > > > > > > > > > - create a git repository
> > > > > > > > > > > - put there the first version of the API (maybe we can
> > put
> > > > > there
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > > > > implementation of the API, but I could leave it off for
> > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > release)
> > > > > > > > > > > - release it to the public
> > > > > > > > > > > - use it in Maven 3.7
> > > > > > > > > > > - use it in Wagon and in Resolver and in other
> > > "interesting"
> > > > > > > > > modules/core
> > > > > > > > > > > plugins
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards
> > > > > > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Sławomir Jaranowski
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 20:11, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

>
> On 10.05.20 19:59, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Events vs metrics is an old topic.
> > The choice between both is not only design but also about perf. In terms
> of
> > design it brings the ability to export data without exposing it in code
> > (events are public). It also avoid to expose a stable api of events and
> > create coupling between plugin/exts and only require a single stable api
> > which is very minimal (lot of projects kept their metric abstraction
> > stable).
> >
> > Typically wagon should export metrics but if you fire an event per
> download
> > progress it will be quite slow currently and you will allocate a lot of
> > objects (or create contentions) just to increase a monotonic counter (a
> > longadder concretely).
> >
> > So I think Enrico is right and we cant avoid metrics (I have to admit
> > events are overcomplex to use for plugin/ext dev, see all profiling
> > extensions,
>
>  > not a single one works and report accurate data whereas metrics
> > can miss some drilldown data but would be right).
>
> Interesting point cause can you give some more details on which the
> testimony is based that none of them works?
>

They all measure bus events, mainly mojo_start, mojo_end but at the end
several mojo have a duration of 0ms...even if they take minutes.

What I saw last time I checked the two top rated by github (and google I
think), some events were missing (one ex where metrics are easier to
handle, you push your data, no computation on consumer side).
Out of my head in the project i was working on, gmaven plugin was totally
missed.


> Can you explain a accurate implementation?
>

If my build take 5mn and i sum all not overlapping times of the report of a
monothreaded (T1) build then i should be close to 5mn (+- some sec for the
boot, ioc, logging, final report).
If I cant extract where time is spent these tools are uselesd.

For the story i used a javaagent (based on sirona) to instrument the build
i was optimizing, was using in memory counters with dump at shutdown (in
csv). Indeed bytecode instrumentation overhead was not low enough but i
managed to explain the build duration properly with such a tool.

If we put these basic metrics in maven core (executor for ex) I'm pretty
confident results will be less random than events interpretation and
required code is very low and trivial to maintain for any dev so guess it
is worth it even if off by default (noop metrics system).


> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
>
>
> >
> > Now we can limit the surfacing api and start only by counters and gauges
> > maybe and later add histogram, meters etc only if needed (not sure for
> mvn).
> >
> > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 19:32, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> >
> >> Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 17:49 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha
> >> scritto:
> >>
> >>> Hi Enrico,
> >>>
> >>> These could all be solved by firing events.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes
> >> I see your point.
> >> Unfortunately those are the first points that I have instrumented in
> order
> >> to see some data.
> >>
> >>
> >>> And there's another benefit: since there won't be an API, we don't need
> >> to
> >>> maintain it,or be afraid of mistakes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Exposed metrics won't be an API, or at least something to be maintained.
> >> Each Maven version, component version, plugin version may expose any
> metric
> >> is valuable for the component developer or for the users.
> >>
> >> Exposed metrics are not an extension point, it is not expected that a
> >> MetricsProvider is able to alter the behaviour of Maven.
> >> Events/Extension point must be maintained forever, but you can drop/add
> a
> >> metric at each release. They are very low level tracking points in code.
> >>
> >> This is because I say that metrics are like loggers: you add logs where
> you
> >> think it is useful, you can change log point at every version, there is
> not
> >> strong contract with the user, logging implementation is totally
> pluggable.
> >>
> >> The Metrics API is mostly the contract with Metrics Provider developers.
> >> It will be very stable, I don't think there will be many changes in the
> mid
> >> term.
> >> It is only about the ability to give a name to counters, summaries and
> >> gauges.
> >>
> >> Having a simple implementation that dumps the final values at the end is
> >> not the full power of this mechanism.
> >>
> >> You can attach Prometheus or any other time series based metrics
> database
> >> and see the evolution of the build, this will be very useful for long
> >> running builds and especially on CI or during component development.
> >>
> >> I will finish the implementation with Prometheus and try to create a
> >> Grafana dashboard.
> >>
> >> It would be super useful that some Maven-internals experts could suggest
> >> useful values to track during the execution of the build.
> >>
> >> I hope that explains better the value of the Metrics system.
> >>
> >> Thank you Robert for your feedback and help
> >>
> >> Enrico
> >>
> >>
> >> To me this is the wrong approach to embed metrics.
> >>>
> 7
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Enrico Olivelli
Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 22:10 Robert Scholte <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> This looks more like a bug, so this should be analyzed.
> It sounds to me, that if this information was accurate, there wouldn't be
> a need for the a separate MetricSystem.
>

Sorry, I have added that metric just to have some data to retrieve and
monitor.
Maybe this is not interesting.

The point is that if I want to track this duration, now I can do it just by
adding a bunch of lines locally.
There is no need to introduce a new formal "event", that would be part of
some public API.
If the information is not useful I can remove it in the next release, there
is no strong contract with the end user

Enrico








>
> Robert
> On 10-5-2020 20:38:39, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 20:11, Karl Heinz Marbaise a
> écrit :
>
> >
> > On 10.05.20 19:59, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > Events vs metrics is an old topic.
> > > The choice between both is not only design but also about perf. In
> terms
> > of
> > > design it brings the ability to export data without exposing it in code
> > > (events are public). It also avoid to expose a stable api of events and
> > > create coupling between plugin/exts and only require a single stable
> api
> > > which is very minimal (lot of projects kept their metric abstraction
> > > stable).
> > >
> > > Typically wagon should export metrics but if you fire an event per
> > download
> > > progress it will be quite slow currently and you will allocate a lot of
> > > objects (or create contentions) just to increase a monotonic counter (a
> > > longadder concretely).
> > >
> > > So I think Enrico is right and we cant avoid metrics (I have to admit
> > > events are overcomplex to use for plugin/ext dev, see all profiling
> > > extensions,
> >
> > > not a single one works and report accurate data whereas metrics
> > > can miss some drilldown data but would be right).
> >
> > Interesting point cause can you give some more details on which the
> > testimony is based that none of them works?
> >
>
> They all measure bus events, mainly mojo_start, mojo_end but at the end
> several mojo have a duration of 0ms...even if they take minutes.
>
> What I saw last time I checked the two top rated by github (and google I
> think), some events were missing (one ex where metrics are easier to
> handle, you push your data, no computation on consumer side).
> Out of my head in the project i was working on, gmaven plugin was totally
> missed.
>
>
> > Can you explain a accurate implementation?
> >
>
> If my build take 5mn and i sum all not overlapping times of the report of a
> monothreaded (T1) build then i should be close to 5mn (+- some sec for the
> boot, ioc, logging, final report).
> If I cant extract where time is spent these tools are uselesd.
>
> For the story i used a javaagent (based on sirona) to instrument the build
> i was optimizing, was using in memory counters with dump at shutdown (in
> csv). Indeed bytecode instrumentation overhead was not low enough but i
> managed to explain the build duration properly with such a tool.
>
> If we put these basic metrics in maven core (executor for ex) I'm pretty
> confident results will be less random than events interpretation and
> required code is very low and trivial to maintain for any dev so guess it
> is worth it even if off by default (noop metrics system).
>
>
> > Kind regards
> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Now we can limit the surfacing api and start only by counters and
> gauges
> > > maybe and later add histogram, meters etc only if needed (not sure for
> > mvn).
> > >
> > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 19:32, Enrico Olivelli a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > >> Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 17:49 Robert Scholte ha
> > >> scritto:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Enrico,
> > >>>
> > >>> These could all be solved by firing events.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yes
> > >> I see your point.
> > >> Unfortunately those are the first points that I have instrumented in
> > order
> > >> to see some data.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> And there's another benefit: since there won't be an API, we don't
> need
> > >> to
> > >>> maintain it,or be afraid of mistakes.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Exposed metrics won't be an API, or at least something to be
> maintained.
> > >> Each Maven version, component version, plugin version may expose any
> > metric
> > >> is valuable for the component developer or for the users.
> > >>
> > >> Exposed metrics are not an extension point, it is not expected that a
> > >> MetricsProvider is able to alter the behaviour of Maven.
> > >> Events/Extension point must be maintained forever, but you can
> drop/add
> > a
> > >> metric at each release. They are very low level tracking points in
> code.
> > >>
> > >> This is because I say that metrics are like loggers: you add logs
> where
> > you
> > >> think it is useful, you can change log point at every version, there
> is
> > not
> > >> strong contract with the user, logging implementation is totally
> > pluggable.
> > >>
> > >> The Metrics API is mostly the contract with Metrics Provider
> developers.
> > >> It will be very stable, I don't think there will be many changes in
> the
> > mid
> > >> term.
> > >> It is only about the ability to give a name to counters, summaries and
> > >> gauges.
> > >>
> > >> Having a simple implementation that dumps the final values at the end
> is
> > >> not the full power of this mechanism.
> > >>
> > >> You can attach Prometheus or any other time series based metrics
> > database
> > >> and see the evolution of the build, this will be very useful for long
> > >> running builds and especially on CI or during component development.
> > >>
> > >> I will finish the implementation with Prometheus and try to create a
> > >> Grafana dashboard.
> > >>
> > >> It would be super useful that some Maven-internals experts could
> suggest
> > >> useful values to track during the execution of the build.
> > >>
> > >> I hope that explains better the value of the Metrics system.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you Robert for your feedback and help
> > >>
> > >> Enrico
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> To me this is the wrong approach to embed metrics.
> > >>>
> > 7
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Enrico Olivelli
Hey guys,
I feel this Metrics Runtime API will be very useful to Maven and Maven
plugins.
But I am not sure we are reaching consensus.

Main points:
1) We will introduce a Metrics Provider API, maintained by Maven project.
2) Metrics are not "extension points", they are not "events",
implementations of the Provider API cannot alter the behaviour of Maven
3) Metrics are just "values in time" (counters, gauges, summaries) ,
usually exposed as time series, they are useful to inspect the runtime
low-level performances of internals of Maven core, internal libraries and
plugins
4) The implementation of the API (the code that publishes and/or analyse
data) is loaded using the Extensions mechanism, by default there will be a
noop implementation bundled with Maven distribution
5) We (Maven project) won't provide initially any implementation other than
the NOOP, in order not to add burden to Maven project. I can maintain a few
implementations on a separate repository, no need to add a burden to main
Maven project.
6) Plugins will be able to register metric values using the Metrics API,
the will look up the MetricSystem component with @Inject or with explicit
lookup.

I am glad to move forward with this project if we agree on all of the
aspects.
I am open to discuss again about  all of the points.

Thanks to everyone who already joined the discussion, I hope we could ship
v1 of the API in Maven 3.7 or Maven 3.8, the sooner the better

Enrico



Il giorno lun 11 mag 2020 alle ore 08:02 Romain Manni-Bucau <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Hmm, it shouldn't be:
>
> metricsSystem
> .getMetricsContext()
> .getSummary( "resolvePluginDependency", "Time to resolve dependencies of a
> plugin (ms)" )
> .add( MetricsUtils.elapsedMillis( startResolve ) );
>
> but
>
> counter.add(duration).
>
> Resolution of the counter can be either (just in terms of inputs, then api
> can be fluent or not, it is a detail for me):
>
> Counter counter = metricSystem.get(new CounterSpec("my counter", "ms"));
>
> or, since any operation in maven has a scope (mojo, artifact resolution,
> ...):
>
> @Inject @MetricSpec("my-counter", "ms") Counter counter;
>
> Concretely metrics system should enable to resolve a counter from a few
> meta (at least name, likely also the unit) and counter is just a long (then
> in terms of impl it is a LongAdder to be concurrency friendly I guess but
> it is a detail).
> We likely don't want to pay any other overhead otherwise I fully agree
> events are almost 1-1 in terms of feature but totally opposed in terms of
> design:
>
> 1. A counter is a unified view of data where data are pushed from
> contributors
> 2. Event are an heterogeneous set of data where consumers are interpreting
> the value
>
> If you want to be iso you create a Counter event but then you have this
> overhead we should avoid IMO + you just recreated metric system with
> another API (likely slower due to the bus usage which requires a lot of
> caching and JIT to be iso in terms of perf but it is really after some
> dozen of thousands of executions).
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 22:23, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
> > Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 22:10 Robert Scholte <
> > [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> > > This looks more like a bug, so this should be analyzed.
> > > It sounds to me, that if this information was accurate, there wouldn't
> be
> > > a need for the a separate MetricSystem.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I have added that metric just to have some data to retrieve and
> > monitor.
> > Maybe this is not interesting.
> >
> > The point is that if I want to track this duration, now I can do it just
> by
> > adding a bunch of lines locally.
> > There is no need to introduce a new formal "event", that would be part of
> > some public API.
> > If the information is not useful I can remove it in the next release,
> there
> > is no strong contract with the end user
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Robert
> > > On 10-5-2020 20:38:39, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 20:11, Karl Heinz Marbaise a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10.05.20 19:59, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > > Events vs metrics is an old topic.
> > > > > The choice between both is not only design but also about perf. In
> > > terms
> > > > of
> > > > > design it brings the ability to export data without exposing it in
> > code
> > > > > (events are public). It also avoid to expose a stable api of events
> > and
> > > > > create coupling between plugin/exts and only require a single
> stable
> > > api
> > > > > which is very minimal (lot of projects kept their metric
> abstraction
> > > > > stable).
> > > > >
> > > > > Typically wagon should export metrics but if you fire an event per
> > > > download
> > > > > progress it will be quite slow currently and you will allocate a
> lot
> > of
> > > > > objects (or create contentions) just to increase a monotonic
> counter
> > (a
> > > > > longadder concretely).
> > > > >
> > > > > So I think Enrico is right and we cant avoid metrics (I have to
> admit
> > > > > events are overcomplex to use for plugin/ext dev, see all profiling
> > > > > extensions,
> > > >
> > > > > not a single one works and report accurate data whereas metrics
> > > > > can miss some drilldown data but would be right).
> > > >
> > > > Interesting point cause can you give some more details on which the
> > > > testimony is based that none of them works?
> > > >
> > >
> > > They all measure bus events, mainly mojo_start, mojo_end but at the end
> > > several mojo have a duration of 0ms...even if they take minutes.
> > >
> > > What I saw last time I checked the two top rated by github (and google
> I
> > > think), some events were missing (one ex where metrics are easier to
> > > handle, you push your data, no computation on consumer side).
> > > Out of my head in the project i was working on, gmaven plugin was
> totally
> > > missed.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Can you explain a accurate implementation?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If my build take 5mn and i sum all not overlapping times of the report
> > of a
> > > monothreaded (T1) build then i should be close to 5mn (+- some sec for
> > the
> > > boot, ioc, logging, final report).
> > > If I cant extract where time is spent these tools are uselesd.
> > >
> > > For the story i used a javaagent (based on sirona) to instrument the
> > build
> > > i was optimizing, was using in memory counters with dump at shutdown
> (in
> > > csv). Indeed bytecode instrumentation overhead was not low enough but i
> > > managed to explain the build duration properly with such a tool.
> > >
> > > If we put these basic metrics in maven core (executor for ex) I'm
> pretty
> > > confident results will be less random than events interpretation and
> > > required code is very low and trivial to maintain for any dev so guess
> it
> > > is worth it even if off by default (noop metrics system).
> > >
> > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now we can limit the surfacing api and start only by counters and
> > > gauges
> > > > > maybe and later add histogram, meters etc only if needed (not sure
> > for
> > > > mvn).
> > > > >
> > > > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 19:32, Enrico Olivelli a
> > > > écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > >> Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 17:49 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > >> scritto:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi Enrico,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> These could all be solved by firing events.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes
> > > > >> I see your point.
> > > > >> Unfortunately those are the first points that I have instrumented
> in
> > > > order
> > > > >> to see some data.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> And there's another benefit: since there won't be an API, we
> don't
> > > need
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>> maintain it,or be afraid of mistakes.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Exposed metrics won't be an API, or at least something to be
> > > maintained.
> > > > >> Each Maven version, component version, plugin version may expose
> any
> > > > metric
> > > > >> is valuable for the component developer or for the users.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Exposed metrics are not an extension point, it is not expected
> that
> > a
> > > > >> MetricsProvider is able to alter the behaviour of Maven.
> > > > >> Events/Extension point must be maintained forever, but you can
> > > drop/add
> > > > a
> > > > >> metric at each release. They are very low level tracking points in
> > > code.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is because I say that metrics are like loggers: you add logs
> > > where
> > > > you
> > > > >> think it is useful, you can change log point at every version,
> there
> > > is
> > > > not
> > > > >> strong contract with the user, logging implementation is totally
> > > > pluggable.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The Metrics API is mostly the contract with Metrics Provider
> > > developers.
> > > > >> It will be very stable, I don't think there will be many changes
> in
> > > the
> > > > mid
> > > > >> term.
> > > > >> It is only about the ability to give a name to counters, summaries
> > and
> > > > >> gauges.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Having a simple implementation that dumps the final values at the
> > end
> > > is
> > > > >> not the full power of this mechanism.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You can attach Prometheus or any other time series based metrics
> > > > database
> > > > >> and see the evolution of the build, this will be very useful for
> > long
> > > > >> running builds and especially on CI or during component
> development.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I will finish the implementation with Prometheus and try to
> create a
> > > > >> Grafana dashboard.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It would be super useful that some Maven-internals experts could
> > > suggest
> > > > >> useful values to track during the execution of the build.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I hope that explains better the value of the Metrics system.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you Robert for your feedback and help
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Enrico
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> To me this is the wrong approach to embed metrics.
> > > > >>>
> > > > 7
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi Enrico,

As mentionned I think 5 would be an error, we should provide an in memory
flavor with a dump at exist (-Dmaven.metrics.dumpOnExit=/tmp/metrics.csv or
so?) otherwise it will be a noop for user so not sure it is worth having it
at all.
In other words, if you want it as a vendor you put a javaagent on the JVM
and you are done with the added value of getting metrics.
I don't mean I think we must not have it, I strongly think we must, but I
also think it is only worth if usable directly, even if limited to in
memory case.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le dim. 31 mai 2020 à 22:31, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Hey guys,
> I feel this Metrics Runtime API will be very useful to Maven and Maven
> plugins.
> But I am not sure we are reaching consensus.
>
> Main points:
> 1) We will introduce a Metrics Provider API, maintained by Maven project.
> 2) Metrics are not "extension points", they are not "events",
> implementations of the Provider API cannot alter the behaviour of Maven
> 3) Metrics are just "values in time" (counters, gauges, summaries) ,
> usually exposed as time series, they are useful to inspect the runtime
> low-level performances of internals of Maven core, internal libraries and
> plugins
> 4) The implementation of the API (the code that publishes and/or analyse
> data) is loaded using the Extensions mechanism, by default there will be a
> noop implementation bundled with Maven distribution
> 5) We (Maven project) won't provide initially any implementation other than
> the NOOP, in order not to add burden to Maven project. I can maintain a few
> implementations on a separate repository, no need to add a burden to main
> Maven project.
> 6) Plugins will be able to register metric values using the Metrics API,
> the will look up the MetricSystem component with @Inject or with explicit
> lookup.
>
> I am glad to move forward with this project if we agree on all of the
> aspects.
> I am open to discuss again about  all of the points.
>
> Thanks to everyone who already joined the discussion, I hope we could ship
> v1 of the API in Maven 3.7 or Maven 3.8, the sooner the better
>
> Enrico
>
>
>
> Il giorno lun 11 mag 2020 alle ore 08:02 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> > Hmm, it shouldn't be:
> >
> > metricsSystem
> > .getMetricsContext()
> > .getSummary( "resolvePluginDependency", "Time to resolve dependencies of
> a
> > plugin (ms)" )
> > .add( MetricsUtils.elapsedMillis( startResolve ) );
> >
> > but
> >
> > counter.add(duration).
> >
> > Resolution of the counter can be either (just in terms of inputs, then
> api
> > can be fluent or not, it is a detail for me):
> >
> > Counter counter = metricSystem.get(new CounterSpec("my counter", "ms"));
> >
> > or, since any operation in maven has a scope (mojo, artifact resolution,
> > ...):
> >
> > @Inject @MetricSpec("my-counter", "ms") Counter counter;
> >
> > Concretely metrics system should enable to resolve a counter from a few
> > meta (at least name, likely also the unit) and counter is just a long
> (then
> > in terms of impl it is a LongAdder to be concurrency friendly I guess but
> > it is a detail).
> > We likely don't want to pay any other overhead otherwise I fully agree
> > events are almost 1-1 in terms of feature but totally opposed in terms of
> > design:
> >
> > 1. A counter is a unified view of data where data are pushed from
> > contributors
> > 2. Event are an heterogeneous set of data where consumers are
> interpreting
> > the value
> >
> > If you want to be iso you create a Counter event but then you have this
> > overhead we should avoid IMO + you just recreated metric system with
> > another API (likely slower due to the bus usage which requires a lot of
> > caching and JIT to be iso in terms of perf but it is really after some
> > dozen of thousands of executions).
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 22:23, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 22:10 Robert Scholte <
> > > [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > This looks more like a bug, so this should be analyzed.
> > > > It sounds to me, that if this information was accurate, there
> wouldn't
> > be
> > > > a need for the a separate MetricSystem.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, I have added that metric just to have some data to retrieve and
> > > monitor.
> > > Maybe this is not interesting.
> > >
> > > The point is that if I want to track this duration, now I can do it
> just
> > by
> > > adding a bunch of lines locally.
> > > There is no need to introduce a new formal "event", that would be part
> of
> > > some public API.
> > > If the information is not useful I can remove it in the next release,
> > there
> > > is no strong contract with the end user
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert
> > > > On 10-5-2020 20:38:39, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 20:11, Karl Heinz Marbaise a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10.05.20 19:59, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > > > Events vs metrics is an old topic.
> > > > > > The choice between both is not only design but also about perf.
> In
> > > > terms
> > > > > of
> > > > > > design it brings the ability to export data without exposing it
> in
> > > code
> > > > > > (events are public). It also avoid to expose a stable api of
> events
> > > and
> > > > > > create coupling between plugin/exts and only require a single
> > stable
> > > > api
> > > > > > which is very minimal (lot of projects kept their metric
> > abstraction
> > > > > > stable).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typically wagon should export metrics but if you fire an event
> per
> > > > > download
> > > > > > progress it will be quite slow currently and you will allocate a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > > objects (or create contentions) just to increase a monotonic
> > counter
> > > (a
> > > > > > longadder concretely).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I think Enrico is right and we cant avoid metrics (I have to
> > admit
> > > > > > events are overcomplex to use for plugin/ext dev, see all
> profiling
> > > > > > extensions,
> > > > >
> > > > > > not a single one works and report accurate data whereas metrics
> > > > > > can miss some drilldown data but would be right).
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting point cause can you give some more details on which the
> > > > > testimony is based that none of them works?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > They all measure bus events, mainly mojo_start, mojo_end but at the
> end
> > > > several mojo have a duration of 0ms...even if they take minutes.
> > > >
> > > > What I saw last time I checked the two top rated by github (and
> google
> > I
> > > > think), some events were missing (one ex where metrics are easier to
> > > > handle, you push your data, no computation on consumer side).
> > > > Out of my head in the project i was working on, gmaven plugin was
> > totally
> > > > missed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Can you explain a accurate implementation?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If my build take 5mn and i sum all not overlapping times of the
> report
> > > of a
> > > > monothreaded (T1) build then i should be close to 5mn (+- some sec
> for
> > > the
> > > > boot, ioc, logging, final report).
> > > > If I cant extract where time is spent these tools are uselesd.
> > > >
> > > > For the story i used a javaagent (based on sirona) to instrument the
> > > build
> > > > i was optimizing, was using in memory counters with dump at shutdown
> > (in
> > > > csv). Indeed bytecode instrumentation overhead was not low enough
> but i
> > > > managed to explain the build duration properly with such a tool.
> > > >
> > > > If we put these basic metrics in maven core (executor for ex) I'm
> > pretty
> > > > confident results will be less random than events interpretation and
> > > > required code is very low and trivial to maintain for any dev so
> guess
> > it
> > > > is worth it even if off by default (noop metrics system).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Kind regards
> > > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now we can limit the surfacing api and start only by counters and
> > > > gauges
> > > > > > maybe and later add histogram, meters etc only if needed (not
> sure
> > > for
> > > > > mvn).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 19:32, Enrico Olivelli a
> > > > > écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 17:49 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > > >> scritto:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi Enrico,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> These could all be solved by firing events.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yes
> > > > > >> I see your point.
> > > > > >> Unfortunately those are the first points that I have
> instrumented
> > in
> > > > > order
> > > > > >> to see some data.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> And there's another benefit: since there won't be an API, we
> > don't
> > > > need
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>> maintain it,or be afraid of mistakes.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Exposed metrics won't be an API, or at least something to be
> > > > maintained.
> > > > > >> Each Maven version, component version, plugin version may expose
> > any
> > > > > metric
> > > > > >> is valuable for the component developer or for the users.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Exposed metrics are not an extension point, it is not expected
> > that
> > > a
> > > > > >> MetricsProvider is able to alter the behaviour of Maven.
> > > > > >> Events/Extension point must be maintained forever, but you can
> > > > drop/add
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> metric at each release. They are very low level tracking points
> in
> > > > code.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This is because I say that metrics are like loggers: you add
> logs
> > > > where
> > > > > you
> > > > > >> think it is useful, you can change log point at every version,
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> strong contract with the user, logging implementation is totally
> > > > > pluggable.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The Metrics API is mostly the contract with Metrics Provider
> > > > developers.
> > > > > >> It will be very stable, I don't think there will be many changes
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > mid
> > > > > >> term.
> > > > > >> It is only about the ability to give a name to counters,
> summaries
> > > and
> > > > > >> gauges.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Having a simple implementation that dumps the final values at
> the
> > > end
> > > > is
> > > > > >> not the full power of this mechanism.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You can attach Prometheus or any other time series based metrics
> > > > > database
> > > > > >> and see the evolution of the build, this will be very useful for
> > > long
> > > > > >> running builds and especially on CI or during component
> > development.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I will finish the implementation with Prometheus and try to
> > create a
> > > > > >> Grafana dashboard.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It would be super useful that some Maven-internals experts could
> > > > suggest
> > > > > >> useful values to track during the execution of the build.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I hope that explains better the value of the Metrics system.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thank you Robert for your feedback and help
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Enrico
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> To me this is the wrong approach to embed metrics.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > 7
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maven Runtime Metrics System - MNG-6899

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le lun. 1 juin 2020 à 10:31, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> My main concerns are:
> - Performance: adding metrics should have (close to) no impact on current
> performance. For short builds metrics might not add enough value, and our
> aim should be fast and short builds. Metrics is a tool to analyze in case
> you seek improvements of your builds
>

Default should stay NOOP so think it matches that


> - Portability:Coincidentally there was just a thread about logging as
> well, Plexus Logger versus SLF4J. One of the things you see is  that we
> regret that Plexus Logger is part of the API.
> In Maven core there is no logging API, so for the same reason I think
> there should be no metrics API in Maven core either.
> Portability is about users being able to pick there own tool to do analysis
> Portability is about plugin-developers users being able to pick there own
> metrics API if they want.
>
> Portability is about Maven being able to switch to a future standard,
> like micrometer, microprofile or something else.
>

This can only be guaranteed having our own API since there is no standard -
and coming ones are biased (cloud) + spread accross vendors enough to not
match Maven anytime soon so abstracting it is securing our codebase and
avoid breaking change and to have to stay on outdated version.
(side note: not saying I'm happy with that but this is our current
ecosystem and it will not be better in the coming years IMHO).


>
> Robert
> On 1-6-2020 07:46:16, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Il Lun 1 Giu 2020, 07:08 Romain Manni-Bucau ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hi Enrico,
> >
> > As mentionned I think 5 would be an error, we should provide an in memory
> > flavor with a dump at exist (-Dmaven.metrics.dumpOnExit=/tmp/metrics.csv
> or
> > so?) otherwise it will be a noop for user so not sure it is worth having
> it
> > at all.
> >
>
> Here it is the implementation
> It is only a matter of pushing it to our ASF repository.
> It is mostly a cut and paste of the same stuff we did in Zookeeper project.
>
> No problem in pushing it to Maven repository from my side.
>
>
> Enrico
>
> In other words, if you want it as a vendor you put a javaagent on the JVM
> > and you are done with the added value of getting metrics.
> > I don't mean I think we must not have it, I strongly think we must, but I
> > also think it is only worth if usable directly, even if limited to in
> > memory case.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog
> > | Old Blog
> > | Github <>
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn | Book
> > <>
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 31 mai 2020 à 22:31, Enrico Olivelli a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Hey guys,
> > > I feel this Metrics Runtime API will be very useful to Maven and Maven
> > > plugins.
> > > But I am not sure we are reaching consensus.
> > >
> > > Main points:
> > > 1) We will introduce a Metrics Provider API, maintained by Maven
> project.
> > > 2) Metrics are not "extension points", they are not "events",
> > > implementations of the Provider API cannot alter the behaviour of Maven
> > > 3) Metrics are just "values in time" (counters, gauges, summaries) ,
> > > usually exposed as time series, they are useful to inspect the runtime
> > > low-level performances of internals of Maven core, internal libraries
> and
> > > plugins
> > > 4) The implementation of the API (the code that publishes and/or
> analyse
> > > data) is loaded using the Extensions mechanism, by default there will
> be
> > a
> > > noop implementation bundled with Maven distribution
> > > 5) We (Maven project) won't provide initially any implementation other
> > than
> > > the NOOP, in order not to add burden to Maven project. I can maintain a
> > few
> > > implementations on a separate repository, no need to add a burden to
> main
> > > Maven project.
> > > 6) Plugins will be able to register metric values using the Metrics
> API,
> > > the will look up the MetricSystem component with @Inject or with
> explicit
> > > lookup.
> > >
> > > I am glad to move forward with this project if we agree on all of the
> > > aspects.
> > > I am open to discuss again about all of the points.
> > >
> > > Thanks to everyone who already joined the discussion, I hope we could
> > ship
> > > v1 of the API in Maven 3.7 or Maven 3.8, the sooner the better
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Il giorno lun 11 mag 2020 alle ore 08:02 Romain Manni-Bucau <>
> > > [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Hmm, it shouldn't be:
> > > >
> > > > metricsSystem
> > > > .getMetricsContext()
> > > > .getSummary( "resolvePluginDependency", "Time to resolve dependencies
> > of
> > > a
> > > > plugin (ms)" )
> > > > .add( MetricsUtils.elapsedMillis( startResolve ) );
> > > >
> > > > but
> > > >
> > > > counter.add(duration).
> > > >
> > > > Resolution of the counter can be either (just in terms of inputs,
> then
> > > api
> > > > can be fluent or not, it is a detail for me):
> > > >
> > > > Counter counter = metricSystem.get(new CounterSpec("my counter",
> > "ms"));
> > > >
> > > > or, since any operation in maven has a scope (mojo, artifact
> > resolution,
> > > > ...):
> > > >
> > > > @Inject @MetricSpec("my-counter", "ms") Counter counter;
> > > >
> > > > Concretely metrics system should enable to resolve a counter from a
> few
> > > > meta (at least name, likely also the unit) and counter is just a long
> > > (then
> > > > in terms of impl it is a LongAdder to be concurrency friendly I guess
> > but
> > > > it is a detail).
> > > > We likely don't want to pay any other overhead otherwise I fully
> agree
> > > > events are almost 1-1 in terms of feature but totally opposed in
> terms
> > of
> > > > design:
> > > >
> > > > 1. A counter is a unified view of data where data are pushed from
> > > > contributors
> > > > 2. Event are an heterogeneous set of data where consumers are
> > > interpreting
> > > > the value
> > > >
> > > > If you want to be iso you create a Counter event but then you have
> this
> > > > overhead we should avoid IMO + you just recreated metric system with
> > > > another API (likely slower due to the bus usage which requires a lot
> of
> > > > caching and JIT to be iso in terms of perf but it is really after
> some
> > > > dozen of thousands of executions).
> > > >
> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > @rmannibucau | Blog
> > > > | Old Blog
> > > > | Github <>
> > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > > LinkedIn | Book
> > > > <>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 22:23, Enrico Olivelli a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > Il giorno dom 10 mag 2020 alle ore 22:10 Robert Scholte <>
> > > > > [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This looks more like a bug, so this should be analyzed.
> > > > > > It sounds to me, that if this information was accurate, there
> > > wouldn't
> > > > be
> > > > > > a need for the a separate MetricSystem.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I have added that metric just to have some data to retrieve
> > and
> > > > > monitor.
> > > > > Maybe this is not interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > The point is that if I want to track this duration, now I can do it
> > > just
> > > > by
> > > > > adding a bunch of lines locally.
> > > > > There is no need to introduce a new formal "event", that would be
> > part
> > > of
> > > > > some public API.
> > > > > If the information is not useful I can remove it in the next
> release,
> > > > there
> > > > > is no strong contract with the end user
> > > > >
> > > > > Enrico
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > On 10-5-2020 20:38:39, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 20:11, Karl Heinz Marbaise a
> > > > > > écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10.05.20 19:59, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > > > > > Events vs metrics is an old topic.
> > > > > > > > The choice between both is not only design but also about
> perf.
> > > In
> > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > design it brings the ability to export data without exposing
> it
> > > in
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > > (events are public). It also avoid to expose a stable api of
> > > events
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > create coupling between plugin/exts and only require a single
> > > > stable
> > > > > > api
> > > > > > > > which is very minimal (lot of projects kept their metric
> > > > abstraction
> > > > > > > > stable).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Typically wagon should export metrics but if you fire an
> event
> > > per
> > > > > > > download
> > > > > > > > progress it will be quite slow currently and you will
> allocate
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > objects (or create contentions) just to increase a monotonic
> > > > counter
> > > > > (a
> > > > > > > > longadder concretely).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So I think Enrico is right and we cant avoid metrics (I have
> to
> > > > admit
> > > > > > > > events are overcomplex to use for plugin/ext dev, see all
> > > profiling
> > > > > > > > extensions,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > not a single one works and report accurate data whereas
> metrics
> > > > > > > > can miss some drilldown data but would be right).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Interesting point cause can you give some more details on which
> > the
> > > > > > > testimony is based that none of them works?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They all measure bus events, mainly mojo_start, mojo_end but at
> the
> > > end
> > > > > > several mojo have a duration of 0ms...even if they take minutes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I saw last time I checked the two top rated by github (and
> > > google
> > > > I
> > > > > > think), some events were missing (one ex where metrics are easier
> > to
> > > > > > handle, you push your data, no computation on consumer side).
> > > > > > Out of my head in the project i was working on, gmaven plugin was
> > > > totally
> > > > > > missed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you explain a accurate implementation?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If my build take 5mn and i sum all not overlapping times of the
> > > report
> > > > > of a
> > > > > > monothreaded (T1) build then i should be close to 5mn (+- some
> sec
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > boot, ioc, logging, final report).
> > > > > > If I cant extract where time is spent these tools are uselesd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the story i used a javaagent (based on sirona) to instrument
> > the
> > > > > build
> > > > > > i was optimizing, was using in memory counters with dump at
> > shutdown
> > > > (in
> > > > > > csv). Indeed bytecode instrumentation overhead was not low enough
> > > but i
> > > > > > managed to explain the build duration properly with such a tool.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we put these basic metrics in maven core (executor for ex) I'm
> > > > pretty
> > > > > > confident results will be less random than events interpretation
> > and
> > > > > > required code is very low and trivial to maintain for any dev so
> > > guess
> > > > it
> > > > > > is worth it even if off by default (noop metrics system).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kind regards
> > > > > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now we can limit the surfacing api and start only by counters
> > and
> > > > > > gauges
> > > > > > > > maybe and later add histogram, meters etc only if needed (not
> > > sure
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > mvn).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 19:32, Enrico Olivelli a
> > > > > > > écrit :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Il Dom 10 Mag 2020, 17:49 Robert Scholte ha
> > > > > > > >> scritto:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Hi Enrico,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> These could all be solved by firing events.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Yes
> > > > > > > >> I see your point.
> > > > > > > >> Unfortunately those are the first points that I have
> > > instrumented
> > > > in
> > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > >> to see some data.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> And there's another benefit: since there won't be an API,
> we
> > > > don't
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >>> maintain it,or be afraid of mistakes.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Exposed metrics won't be an API, or at least something to be
> > > > > > maintained.
> > > > > > > >> Each Maven version, component version, plugin version may
> > expose
> > > > any
> > > > > > > metric
> > > > > > > >> is valuable for the component developer or for the users.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Exposed metrics are not an extension point, it is not
> expected
> > > > that
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> MetricsProvider is able to alter the behaviour of Maven.
> > > > > > > >> Events/Extension point must be maintained forever, but you
> can
> > > > > > drop/add
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> metric at each release. They are very low level tracking
> > points
> > > in
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> This is because I say that metrics are like loggers: you add
> > > logs
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> think it is useful, you can change log point at every
> version,
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> strong contract with the user, logging implementation is
> > totally
> > > > > > > pluggable.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The Metrics API is mostly the contract with Metrics Provider
> > > > > > developers.
> > > > > > > >> It will be very stable, I don't think there will be many
> > changes
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > mid
> > > > > > > >> term.
> > > > > > > >> It is only about the ability to give a name to counters,
> > > summaries
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> gauges.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Having a simple implementation that dumps the final values
> at
> > > the
> > > > > end
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> not the full power of this mechanism.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> You can attach Prometheus or any other time series based
> > metrics
> > > > > > > database
> > > > > > > >> and see the evolution of the build, this will be very useful
> > for
> > > > > long
> > > > > > > >> running builds and especially on CI or during component
> > > > development.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I will finish the implementation with Prometheus and try to
> > > > create a
> > > > > > > >> Grafana dashboard.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> It would be super useful that some Maven-internals experts
> > could
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > >> useful values to track during the execution of the build.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I hope that explains better the value of the Metrics system.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thank you Robert for your feedback and help
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Enrico
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> To me this is the wrong approach to embed metrics.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > 7
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>