Mailinglist Archive: yast-devel (211 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [yast-devel] Some notes about new storage API
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:54:40 +0200
Arvin Schnell <aschnell@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 01:05:16PM +0200, Josef Reidinger wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:29:44 +0200
Arvin Schnell <aschnell@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:14:03AM +0200, Josef Reidinger wrote:

I'll do more experiments with this as soon as the prototype is
easily installable. But looks pretty clear that it would be
fairly easy to fix the un-rubism by adding the corresponding
methods in the Ruby side in case we decide we are so purist
that we cannot live with the current API. :-) So nothing to
fix in the libstorage (C++) side.

I agree, that it make sense to have some helpers to have ruby
bindings more "ruby".

Just remember that those need documentation and test cases.

a) Is device_graph always an object representing the whole

The devicegraph always represents the whole graph.

Well, in general I do not like this API before and I also do not
like it now :)
It is not object oriented and whats more device_graph is god
like object.

Please elaborate this. What do you mean by God like object? A
object that holds all storage objects?

Yes, if you have object that hold everything it is not graph, but
flat structure.

Sure it's a graph, see, esp. "a
graph is a [...] pair G = (V, E) comprising a set V of
vertices [...] together with a set E of edges [...]".

OK, to be precise graph of objects, not just data.

Regarding god objest see it is one extrem, where you
have too powerfull object.

I consider a single search function, as was proposed, as too
powerful (among other problems already explained).

Question is if for user is easier to learn and understand powerful
method or powerful object, that have bunch of methods.

Please explain that, esp. what problems you see with the existing
target map and how you still see this problems with the new

Problem of target map is that it is not much flexible. It is not
object, it is more like data. And if data changed, then all methods
that use it need to adapt. In general rule for design is

1) if data is fixed and just way how it is interpreted changed, then
create data object and have methods that work on top of it.

2) if data is changed, but way how it is worked with them do not
change, then use object that represent such data.

Reason is easy changes. If you need to add new data type, is it
easier to change device_graph and all methods that do finding or
use some kind of child to represent it and connect it to rest of

These general rules don't help much when we discuss concrete

I state specific part in first paragraph. Problem with this design is
when data is changed, so now any change of target_map affect too much
code. Same problem is in new design with device_graph, which affect too
much part of code.

I prefer to have graph of objects that points to each other

The device-graph is just that and the functions to query the
"pointers" exist.

That is something different. Now you have one object that holds it.
so it is like

device_graph -> A, B, C, D, E

That is not a graph but just a list of nodes without edges.

I just want to demonstrate why it is god object and flat desing.
device_graph point to everything. So it is god or big brother :)

if it use graph of object then it can look like

device_graph -> filesystems -> A, B
-> physical_devices -> C, D
-> containers -> E
and what is more important E point to C, D....C can point to
partition C1, C2 and C1 can point to A and C2 can point to B.

In a graph everything can point to everything. The "pointer" can
even hold data.

Difference is who knows about connection. If graph knows about
connections or nodes.

This way if something need disk, it can query it for partitions and
inspect its filesystems without knowing if it is teoretic device
graph, real one or modified one.

In the current prototype the functions can work on all graphs,
whether it's the "system", the "staging" or "my ideas" graph.

And is it reusable code? Now all code depends heavily on device_graph.
So if I want reuse some class elsewhere I need big god object like
device_graph. If it is used by smaller classes I know that for
reusability I need implement few abstract classes or in ruby case have
objects that responds to given set of methods.

and it is easy to say what object it returns. It also allows
easy introspection and better documentation that allows easier

In general your remarks are to buzz-work like to comment on them.

OK, let me explain it better. and use ruby as example.

If I am interested what e.g. device_graph provide me, I can do
device_graph.methods which in case passing device_graph everywhere
do not should interesting stuff. Also methods is not documented in
it and lives elsewhere.

Sorry, I don't understand that.

My point is that class in object design is encapsulated data and
ability it provides, so for usage you check methods of class. But
device_graph have a lot of methods that lives in different place.

In case when you use object like approach then you can do something

disk.methods -> partitions, label, ...

and then you can check what provide you partitions, what provide you
label, etc.

If I get you right you want to replace documentation by

In general no. introspection is to get ability of object. Documentation
is to get details of abilities. Introspection is useful when you want
extendable interface.

So it is easier to understand whole picture as it is layer
knowledge. You have reasonable small Disk object and if it return
in some method e.f. Partition object, then again you can check it
and see what it provides if you need it.

The documentation will include a tree of storage classes so you
can get that information very easy.

Yes, if there is no extensions and if user know what class he want.

Counter example now is Storage module in yast2-storage which is
overloaded by methods. Current approach in new libstorage for me
looks like we have all methods for device_graph which is just
enclosed in namespaces like
Storage::Filesystem.find_by_mountpoint(device_graph, "/")

which for me is just something like

Then you don't understand the basic prinicipe of OOP, that the
methods are part of the class that hold the data.

And thats the point. I think it is wrong if all data is hold by
device_graph. It is not clear for me how extension can extend data if
it is all hold by one class.

And BTW how Storage::Filesystem class holds data to find
shows that it use data from device graph, which holds all data.

In general agreed, but if you have a get_xx and a set_xx function
a find_by_xx seems natural.

That depends how often it will be extended.

It should not happen so often. And you will have to add the
getter and setter anyway.

ciao Arvin

I think in general conclusion for me is that I do not like data centric
api with device_graph and we do not agreed on that, so I am interested
also in others opinion.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups