Integration testing custom validation constraints in Jersey 2

I recently joined a team trying to switch a monolithic legacy system into set of RESTful services in Java. They decided to use latest 2.x version of Jersey as a REST container which was not a first choice for me, since I’m not a big fan of JSR-* specs. But now I must admit that JAX-RS 2.x is doing things right: requires almost zero boilerplate code, support auto-discovery of features and prefers convention over configuration like other modern frameworks. Since the spec is still young, it’s hard to find good tutorials and kick-off projects with some working code. I created jersey2-starter project on GitHub which can be used as starting point for your own production-ready RESTful service. In this post I’d like to cover how to implement and integration test your own validation constraints of REST resources. Custom constraints One of the issues which bothers me when coding REST in Java is littering your class model with annotations. Suppose you want to build a simple Todo list REST service, when using Jackson, validation and Spring Data, you can easily end up with this as your entity class: @Document public class Todo { private Long id; @NotNull private String description; @NotNull private Boolean completed; @NotNull private DateTime dueDate; @JsonCreator public Todo(@JsonProperty("description") String description, @JsonProperty("dueDate") DateTime dueDate) { this.description = description; this.dueDate = dueDate; this.completed = false; } // getters and setters } Your domain model is now effectively blured by messy annotations almost everywhere. Let’s see what we can do with validation constraints (@NotNulls). Some may say that you could introduce some DTO layer with own validation rules, but it conflicts for me with pure REST API design, which stands that you operate on resources which should map to your domain classes. On the other hand – what does it mean that Todo object is valid? When you create a Todo you should provide a description and due date, but what when you’re updating? You should be able to change any of description, due date (postponing) and completion flag (marking as done) – but you should provide at least one of these as valid modification. So my idea is to introduce custom validation constraints, different ones for creation and modification: @Target({TYPE, PARAMETER}) @Retention(RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForCreation.Validator.class) public @interface ValidForCreation { //... class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForCreation, Todo> { /... @Override public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) { return todo != null && todo.getId() == null && todo.getDescription() != null && todo.getDueDate() != null; } } } @Target({TYPE, PARAMETER}) @Retention(RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForModification.Validator.class) public @interface ValidForModification { //... class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForModification, Todo> { /... @Override public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) { return todo != null && todo.getId() == null && (todo.getDescription() != null || todo.getDueDate() != null || todo.isCompleted() != null); } } } And now you can move validation annotations to the definition of a REST endpoint: @POST @Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON) public Response create(@ValidForCreation Todo todo) {...} @PUT @Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON) public Response update(@ValidForModification Todo todo) {...} And now you can remove those NotNulls from your model. Integration testing There are in general two approaches to integration testing: test is being run on separate JVM than the app, which is deployed on some other integration environment test deploys the application programmatically in the setup block. Both of these have their pros and cons, but for small enough servoces, I personally prefer the second approach. It’s much easier to setup and you have only one JVM started, which makes debugging really easy. You can use a generic framework like Arquillian for starting your application in a container environment, but I prefer simple solutions and just use emdedded Jetty. To make test setup 100% production equivalent, I’m creating full Jetty’s WebAppContext and have to resolve all runtime dependencies for Jersey auto-discovery to work. This can be simply achieved with Maven resolved from Shrinkwrap – an Arquillian subproject: WebAppContext webAppContext = new WebAppContext(); webAppContext.setResourceBase("src/main/webapp"); webAppContext.setContextPath("/"); File[] mavenLibs = Maven.resolver().loadPomFromFile("pom.xml") .importCompileAndRuntimeDependencies() .resolve().withTransitivity().asFile(); for (File file: mavenLibs) { webAppContext.getMetaData().addWebInfJar(new FileResource(file.toURI())); } webAppContext.getMetaData().addContainerResource(new FileResource(new File("./target/classes").toURI())); webAppContext.setConfigurations(new Configuration[] { new AnnotationConfiguration(), new WebXmlConfiguration(), new WebInfConfiguration() }); server.setHandler(webAppContext); (this Stackoverflow thread inspired me a lot here) Now it’s time for the last part of the post: parametrizing our integration tests. Since we want to test validation constraints, there are many edge paths to check (and make your code coverage close to 100%). Writing one test per each case could be a bad idea. Among the many solutions for JUnit I’m most convinced to the Junit Params by Pragmatists team. It’s really simple and have nice concept of JQuery-like helper for creating providers. Here is my tests code (I’m also using builder pattern here to create various kinds of Todos): @Test @Parameters(method = "provideInvalidTodosForCreation") public void shouldRejectInvalidTodoWhenCreate(Todo todo) { Response response = createTarget().request().post(Entity.json(todo)); assertThat(response.getStatus()).isEqualTo(BAD_REQUEST.getStatusCode()); } private static Object[] provideInvalidTodosForCreation() { return $( new TodoBuilder().withDescription("test").build(), new TodoBuilder().withDueDate(DateTime.now()).build(), new TodoBuilder().withId(123L).build(), new TodoBuilder().build() ); } OK, enough of reading, feel free to clone the project and start writing your REST services! I recently joined a team trying to switch a monolithic legacy system into set of RESTful services in Java. They decided to use latest 2.x version of Jersey as a REST container which was not a first choice for me, since I’m not a big fan of JSR-* specs. But now I must admit that JAX-RS 2.x is doing things right: requires almost zero boilerplate code, support auto-discovery of features and prefers convention over configuration like other modern frameworks. Since the spec is still young, it’s hard to find good tutorials and kick-off projects with some working code. I created jersey2-starter project on GitHub which can be used as starting point for your own production-ready RESTful service. In this post I’d like to cover how to implement and integration test your own validation constraints of REST resources. Custom constraints One of the issues which bothers me when coding REST in Java is littering your class model with annotations. Suppose you want to build a simple Todo list REST service, when using Jackson, validation and Spring Data, you can easily end up with this as your entity class: @Document public class Todo { private Long id; @NotNull private String description; @NotNull private Boolean completed; @NotNull private DateTime dueDate; @JsonCreator public Todo(@JsonProperty("description") String description, @JsonProperty("dueDate") DateTime dueDate) { this.description = description; this.dueDate = dueDate; this.completed = false; } // getters and setters } Your domain model is now effectively blured by messy annotations almost everywhere. Let’s see what we can do with validation constraints (@NotNulls). Some may say that you could introduce some DTO layer with own validation rules, but it conflicts for me with pure REST API design, which stands that you operate on resources which should map to your domain classes. On the other hand – what does it mean that Todo object is valid? When you create a Todo you should provide a description and due date, but what when you’re updating? You should be able to change any of description, due date (postponing) and completion flag (marking as done) – but you should provide at least one of these as valid modification. So my idea is to introduce custom validation constraints, different ones for creation and modification: @Target({TYPE, PARAMETER}) @Retention(RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForCreation.Validator.class) public @interface ValidForCreation { //... class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForCreation, Todo> { /... @Override public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) { return todo != null && todo.getId() == null && todo.getDescription() != null && todo.getDueDate() != null; } } } @Target({TYPE, PARAMETER}) @Retention(RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForModification.Validator.class) public @interface ValidForModification { //... class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForModification, Todo> { /... @Override public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) { return todo != null && todo.getId() == null && (todo.getDescription() != null || todo.getDueDate() != null || todo.isCompleted() != null); } } } And now you can move validation annotations to the definition of a REST endpoint: @POST @Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON) public Response create(@ValidForCreation Todo todo) {...} @PUT @Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON) public Response update(@ValidForModification Todo todo) {...} And now you can remove those NotNulls from your model. Integration testing There are in general two approaches to integration testing: test is being run on separate JVM than the app, which is deployed on some other integration environment test deploys the application programmatically in the setup block. Both of these have their pros and cons, but for small enough servoces, I personally prefer the second approach. It’s much easier to setup and you have only one JVM started, which makes debugging really easy. You can use a generic framework like Arquillian for starting your application in a container environment, but I prefer simple solutions and just use emdedded Jetty. To make test setup 100% production equivalent, I’m creating full Jetty’s WebAppContext and have to resolve all runtime dependencies for Jersey auto-discovery to work. This can be simply achieved with Maven resolved from Shrinkwrap – an Arquillian subproject: WebAppContext webAppContext = new WebAppContext(); webAppContext.setResourceBase("src/main/webapp"); webAppContext.setContextPath("/"); File[] mavenLibs = Maven.resolver().loadPomFromFile("pom.xml") .importCompileAndRuntimeDependencies() .resolve().withTransitivity().asFile(); for (File file: mavenLibs) { webAppContext.getMetaData().addWebInfJar(new FileResource(file.toURI())); } webAppContext.getMetaData().addContainerResource(new FileResource(new File("./target/classes").toURI())); webAppContext.setConfigurations(new Configuration[] { new AnnotationConfiguration(), new WebXmlConfiguration(), new WebInfConfiguration() }); server.setHandler(webAppContext); (this Stackoverflow thread inspired me a lot here) Now it’s time for the last part of the post: parametrizing our integration tests. Since we want to test validation constraints, there are many edge paths to check (and make your code coverage close to 100%). Writing one test per each case could be a bad idea. Among the many solutions for JUnit I’m most convinced to the Junit Params by Pragmatists team. It’s really simple and have nice concept of JQuery-like helper for creating providers. Here is my tests code (I’m also using builder pattern here to create various kinds of Todos): @Test @Parameters(method = "provideInvalidTodosForCreation") public void shouldRejectInvalidTodoWhenCreate(Todo todo) { Response response = createTarget().request().post(Entity.json(todo)); assertThat(response.getStatus()).isEqualTo(BAD_REQUEST.getStatusCode()); } private static Object[] provideInvalidTodosForCreation() { return $( new TodoBuilder().withDescription("test").build(), new TodoBuilder().withDueDate(DateTime.now()).build(), new TodoBuilder().withId(123L).build(), new TodoBuilder().build() ); } OK, enough of reading, feel free to clone the project and start writing your REST services!

I recently joined a team trying to switch a monolithic legacy system into set of RESTful services in Java. They decided to use latest 2.x version of Jersey as a REST container which was not a first choice for me, since I’m not a big fan of JSR-* specs. But now I must admit that JAX-RS 2.x is doing things right: requires almost zero boilerplate code, support auto-discovery of features and prefers convention over configuration like other modern frameworks. Since the spec is still young, it’s hard to find good tutorials and kick-off projects with some working code. I created jersey2-starter project on GitHub which can be used as starting point for your own production-ready RESTful service. In this post I’d like to cover how to implement and integration test your own validation constraints of REST resources.

Custom constraints

One of the issues which bothers me when coding REST in Java is littering your class model with annotations. Suppose you want to build a simple Todo list REST service, when using Jackson, validation and Spring Data, you can easily end up with this as your entity class:

@Document
public class Todo {
    private Long id;
    @NotNull
    private String description;
    @NotNull
    private Boolean completed;
    @NotNull
    private DateTime dueDate;

    @JsonCreator
    public Todo(@JsonProperty("description") String description, @JsonProperty("dueDate") DateTime dueDate) {
        this.description = description;
        this.dueDate = dueDate;
        this.completed = false;
    }
    // getters and setters
}

Your domain model is now effectively blured by messy annotations almost everywhere. Let’s see what we can do with validation constraints (@NotNulls). Some may say that you could introduce some DTO layer with own validation rules, but it conflicts for me with pure REST API design, which stands that you operate on resources which should map to your domain classes. On the other hand – what does it mean that Todo object is valid? When you create a Todo you should provide a description and due date, but what when you’re updating? You should be able to change any of description, due date (postponing) and completion flag (marking as done) – but you should provide at least one of these as valid modification. So my idea is to introduce custom validation constraints, different ones for creation and modification:

@Target({TYPE, PARAMETER})
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForCreation.Validator.class)
public @interface ValidForCreation {
    //...
    class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForCreation, Todo> {
    /...
        @Override
        public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) {
            return todo != null
                && todo.getId() == null
                && todo.getDescription() != null
                && todo.getDueDate() != null;
        }
    }
}

@Target({TYPE, PARAMETER})
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForModification.Validator.class)
public @interface ValidForModification {
    //...
    class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForModification, Todo> {
    /...
        @Override
        public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) {
            return todo != null
                && todo.getId() == null
                && (todo.getDescription() != null || todo.getDueDate() != null || todo.isCompleted() != null);
        }
    }
}

And now you can move validation annotations to the definition of a REST endpoint:

@POST
@Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON)
public Response create(@ValidForCreation Todo todo) {...}

@PUT
@Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON)
public Response update(@ValidForModification Todo todo) {...}

And now you can remove those NotNulls from your model.

Integration testing

There are in general two approaches to integration testing:

  • test is being run on separate JVM than the app, which is deployed on some other integration environment
  • test deploys the application programmatically in the setup block.

Both of these have their pros and cons, but for small enough servoces, I personally prefer the second approach. It’s much easier to setup and you have only one JVM started, which makes debugging really easy. You can use a generic framework like Arquillian for starting your application in a container environment, but I prefer simple solutions and just use emdedded Jetty. To make test setup 100% production equivalent, I’m creating full Jetty’s WebAppContext and have to resolve all runtime dependencies for Jersey auto-discovery to work. This can be simply achieved with Maven resolved from Shrinkwrap – an Arquillian subproject:

    WebAppContext webAppContext = new WebAppContext();
    webAppContext.setResourceBase("src/main/webapp");
    webAppContext.setContextPath("/");
    File[] mavenLibs = Maven.resolver().loadPomFromFile("pom.xml")
                .importCompileAndRuntimeDependencies()
                .resolve().withTransitivity().asFile();
    for (File file: mavenLibs) {
        webAppContext.getMetaData().addWebInfJar(new FileResource(file.toURI()));
    }
    webAppContext.getMetaData().addContainerResource(new FileResource(new File("./target/classes").toURI()));

    webAppContext.setConfigurations(new Configuration[] {
        new AnnotationConfiguration(),
        new WebXmlConfiguration(),
        new WebInfConfiguration()
    });
    server.setHandler(webAppContext);

(this Stackoverflow thread inspired me a lot here)

Now it’s time for the last part of the post: parametrizing our integration tests. Since we want to test validation constraints, there are many edge paths to check (and make your code coverage close to 100%). Writing one test per each case could be a bad idea. Among the many solutions for JUnit I’m most convinced to the Junit Params by Pragmatists team. It’s really simple and have nice concept of JQuery-like helper for creating providers. Here is my tests code (I’m also using builder pattern here to create various kinds of Todos):

@Test
@Parameters(method = "provideInvalidTodosForCreation")
public void shouldRejectInvalidTodoWhenCreate(Todo todo) {
    Response response = createTarget().request().post(Entity.json(todo));

    assertThat(response.getStatus()).isEqualTo(BAD_REQUEST.getStatusCode());
}

private static Object[] provideInvalidTodosForCreation() {
    return $(
        new TodoBuilder().withDescription("test").build(),
        new TodoBuilder().withDueDate(DateTime.now()).build(),
        new TodoBuilder().withId(123L).build(),
        new TodoBuilder().build()
    );
}

OK, enough of reading, feel free to clone the project and start writing your REST services!

You May Also Like

Zookeeper + Curator = Distributed sync

An application developed for one of my recent projects at TouK involved multiple servers. There was a requirement to ensure failover for the system’s components. Since I had already a few separate components I didn’t want to add more of that, and since there already was a Zookeeper ensemble running - required by one of the services, I’ve decided to go that way with my solution.

What is Zookeeper?

Just a crude distributed synchronization framework. However, it implements Paxos-style algorithms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science)) to ensure no split-brain scenarios would occur. This is quite an important feature, since I don’t have to care about that kind of problems while using this app. You just need to create an ensemble of a couple of its instances - to ensure high availability. It is basically a virtual filesystem, with files, directories and stuff. One could ask why another filesystem? Well this one is a rather special one, especially for distributed systems. The reason why creating all the locking algorithms on top of Zookeeper is easy is its Ephemeral Nodes - which are just files that exist as long as connection for them exists. After it disconnects - such file disappears.

With such paradigms in place it’s fairly easy to create some high level algorithms for synchronization.

Having that in place, it can safely integrate multiple services ensuring loose coupling in a distributed way.

Zookeeper from developer’s POV

With all the base services for Zookeeper started, it seems there is nothing else, than just connect to it and start implementing necessary algorithms. Unfortunately, the API is quite basic and offers files and directories abstractions with the addition of different node type (file types) - ephemeral and sequence. It is also possible to watch a node for changes.

Using bare Zookeeper is hard!

Creating connections is tedious - and there is lots of things to take care of. Handling an established connection is hard - when establishing connection to ensemble, it’s necessary to negotiate a session also. During the whole process a number of exceptions can occur - these are “recoverable” exceptions, that can be gracefully handled and not break the connection.

    class="c8"><span>So, Zookeeper API is hard.</span></p><p class="c1"><span></span></p><p class="c8"><span>Even if one is proficient with that API, then there come recipes. The reason for using Zookeeper is to be able to implement some more sophisticated algorithms on top of it. Unfortunately those aren&rsquo;t trivial and it is again quite hard to implement them without bugs.</span>

And since distributed systems are hard, why would anyone want another difficult to handle tool?

Enter Curator

<p
    class="c8"><span>Happily, guys from Netflix implemented a nice abstraction for dealing with Zookeeper internals. They called it Curator and use it extensively in the company&rsquo;s environment. Curator offers consistent API for Zookeeper&rsquo;s functionality. It even implements a couple of recipes for distributed systems.</span>

File read/write

<p
    class="c8"><span>The basic use of Zookeeper is as a distributed configuration repository. For this scenario I only need read/write capabilities, to be able to write and read files from the Zookeeper filesystem. This code snippet writes a sample json to a file on ZK filesystem.</span>

<a href="#"
                                                                                                  name="0"></a>

EnsurePath ensurePath = new EnsurePath(markerPath);
ensurePath.ensure(client.getZookeeperClient());
String json = “...”;
if (client.checkExists().forPath(statusFile(core)) != null)
     client.setData().forPath(statusFile(core), json.getBytes());
else
     client.create().forPath(statusFile(core), json.getBytes());


Distributed locking

Having multiple systems there may be a need of using an exclusive lock for some resource, or perhaps some big system requires it’s components to synchronize based on locks. This “recipe” is an ideal match for those situations.

ref="#"
                                                                                    name="b0329bbbf14b79ffaba1139881914aea887ef6a3"></a>



lock = new InterProcessSemaphoreMutex(client, lockPath);
lock.acquire(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
… do sth …
lock.release();


 (from https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/curator/LockingRemotely.java)

Sevice Advertisement

<p

    class="c8"><span>This is quite an interesting use case. With many small services on different servers it is not wise to exchange ip addresses and ports between them. When some of those services may go down, while other will try to replace them - the task gets even harder. </span>

That’s why, with Zookeeper in place, it can be utilised as a registry of existing services.

If a service starts, it registers into the ServiceRegistry, offering basic information, like it’s purpose, role, address, and port.

Services that want to use a specific kind of service request an access to some instance. This way of configuring easily decouples services from their configuration.

Basically this scenario needs ? steps:

<span>1. Service starts and registers its presence (</span><span class="c5"><a class="c0"
                                                                               href="https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/curator/WorkerAdvertiser.java#L44">https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/curator/WorkerAdvertiser.java#L44</a></span><span>)</span><span>:</span>



ServiceDiscovery discovery = getDiscovery();
            discovery.start();
            ServiceInstance si = getInstance();
            log.info(si);
            discovery.registerService(si);



2. Another service - on another host or in another JVM on the same machine tries to discover who is implementing the service (https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/curator/WorkerFinder.java#L50):

<a href="#"

                                                                                                  name="3"></a>

instances = discovery.queryForInstances(serviceName);

The whole concept here is ridiculously simple - the service advertising its presence just stores a file with its whereabouts. The service that is looking for service providers just look into specific directory and read stored definitions.

In my example, the structure advertised by services looks like this (+ some getters and constructor - the rest is here: https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/model/WorkerMetadata.java):



public final class WorkerMetadata {
    private final UUID workerId;
    private final String listenAddress;
    private final int listenPort;
}


Source code

<p

    class="c8"><span>The above recipes are available in Curator library (</span><span class="c5"><a class="c0"
                                                                                                    href="http://curator.incubator.apache.org/">http://curator.incubator.apache.org/</a></span><span>). Recipes&rsquo;
usage examples are in my github repo at </span><span class="c5"><a class="c0"
                                                                   href="https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground">https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground</a></span>

Conclusion

<p
    class="c8"><span>If you&rsquo;re in need of a reliable platform for exchanging data and managing synchronization, and you need to do it in a distributed fashion - just choose Zookeeper. Then add Curator for the ease of using it. Enjoy!</span>


  1. image comes from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jfgallery/2993361148
  2. all source code fragments taken from this repo: https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground

An application developed for one of my recent projects at TouK involved multiple servers. There was a requirement to ensure failover for the system’s components. Since I had already a few separate components I didn’t want to add more of that, and since there already was a Zookeeper ensemble running - required by one of the services, I’ve decided to go that way with my solution.

What is Zookeeper?

Just a crude distributed synchronization framework. However, it implements Paxos-style algorithms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science)) to ensure no split-brain scenarios would occur. This is quite an important feature, since I don’t have to care about that kind of problems while using this app. You just need to create an ensemble of a couple of its instances - to ensure high availability. It is basically a virtual filesystem, with files, directories and stuff. One could ask why another filesystem? Well this one is a rather special one, especially for distributed systems. The reason why creating all the locking algorithms on top of Zookeeper is easy is its Ephemeral Nodes - which are just files that exist as long as connection for them exists. After it disconnects - such file disappears.

With such paradigms in place it’s fairly easy to create some high level algorithms for synchronization.

Having that in place, it can safely integrate multiple services ensuring loose coupling in a distributed way.

Zookeeper from developer’s POV

With all the base services for Zookeeper started, it seems there is nothing else, than just connect to it and start implementing necessary algorithms. Unfortunately, the API is quite basic and offers files and directories abstractions with the addition of different node type (file types) - ephemeral and sequence. It is also possible to watch a node for changes.

Using bare Zookeeper is hard!

Creating connections is tedious - and there is lots of things to take care of. Handling an established connection is hard - when establishing connection to ensemble, it’s necessary to negotiate a session also. During the whole process a number of exceptions can occur - these are “recoverable” exceptions, that can be gracefully handled and not break the connection.

    class="c8"><span>So, Zookeeper API is hard.</span></p><p class="c1"><span></span></p><p class="c8"><span>Even if one is proficient with that API, then there come recipes. The reason for using Zookeeper is to be able to implement some more sophisticated algorithms on top of it. Unfortunately those aren&rsquo;t trivial and it is again quite hard to implement them without bugs.</span>

And since distributed systems are hard, why would anyone want another difficult to handle tool?

Enter Curator

<p
    class="c8"><span>Happily, guys from Netflix implemented a nice abstraction for dealing with Zookeeper internals. They called it Curator and use it extensively in the company&rsquo;s environment. Curator offers consistent API for Zookeeper&rsquo;s functionality. It even implements a couple of recipes for distributed systems.</span>

File read/write

<p
    class="c8"><span>The basic use of Zookeeper is as a distributed configuration repository. For this scenario I only need read/write capabilities, to be able to write and read files from the Zookeeper filesystem. This code snippet writes a sample json to a file on ZK filesystem.</span>

<a href="#"
                                                                                                  name="0"></a>

EnsurePath ensurePath = new EnsurePath(markerPath);
ensurePath.ensure(client.getZookeeperClient());
String json = “...”;
if (client.checkExists().forPath(statusFile(core)) != null)
     client.setData().forPath(statusFile(core), json.getBytes());
else
     client.create().forPath(statusFile(core), json.getBytes());


Distributed locking

Having multiple systems there may be a need of using an exclusive lock for some resource, or perhaps some big system requires it’s components to synchronize based on locks. This “recipe” is an ideal match for those situations.

ref="#"
                                                                                    name="b0329bbbf14b79ffaba1139881914aea887ef6a3"></a>



lock = new InterProcessSemaphoreMutex(client, lockPath);
lock.acquire(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
… do sth …
lock.release();


 (from https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/curator/LockingRemotely.java)

Sevice Advertisement

<p

    class="c8"><span>This is quite an interesting use case. With many small services on different servers it is not wise to exchange ip addresses and ports between them. When some of those services may go down, while other will try to replace them - the task gets even harder. </span>

That’s why, with Zookeeper in place, it can be utilised as a registry of existing services.

If a service starts, it registers into the ServiceRegistry, offering basic information, like it’s purpose, role, address, and port.

Services that want to use a specific kind of service request an access to some instance. This way of configuring easily decouples services from their configuration.

Basically this scenario needs ? steps:

<span>1. Service starts and registers its presence (</span><span class="c5"><a class="c0"
                                                                               href="https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/curator/WorkerAdvertiser.java#L44">https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/curator/WorkerAdvertiser.java#L44</a></span><span>)</span><span>:</span>



ServiceDiscovery discovery = getDiscovery();
            discovery.start();
            ServiceInstance si = getInstance();
            log.info(si);
            discovery.registerService(si);



2. Another service - on another host or in another JVM on the same machine tries to discover who is implementing the service (https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/curator/WorkerFinder.java#L50):

<a href="#"

                                                                                                  name="3"></a>

instances = discovery.queryForInstances(serviceName);

The whole concept here is ridiculously simple - the service advertising its presence just stores a file with its whereabouts. The service that is looking for service providers just look into specific directory and read stored definitions.

In my example, the structure advertised by services looks like this (+ some getters and constructor - the rest is here: https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground/blob/master/src/main/java/pl/touk/model/WorkerMetadata.java):



public final class WorkerMetadata {
    private final UUID workerId;
    private final String listenAddress;
    private final int listenPort;
}


Source code

<p

    class="c8"><span>The above recipes are available in Curator library (</span><span class="c5"><a class="c0"
                                                                                                    href="http://curator.incubator.apache.org/">http://curator.incubator.apache.org/</a></span><span>). Recipes&rsquo;
usage examples are in my github repo at </span><span class="c5"><a class="c0"
                                                                   href="https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground">https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground</a></span>

Conclusion

<p
    class="c8"><span>If you&rsquo;re in need of a reliable platform for exchanging data and managing synchronization, and you need to do it in a distributed fashion - just choose Zookeeper. Then add Curator for the ease of using it. Enjoy!</span>


  1. image comes from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jfgallery/2993361148
  2. all source code fragments taken from this repo: https://github.com/zygm0nt/curator-playground