P3T

[Dempsey, James (IM&T, Black Mountain)]

Hi Mark,

Thank-you for raising this. The question of compatibility is an important one and something we are very keen to explore in phase 1. Examining concrete implementations and being able to assess the amount of change involved will be a key aspect of the assessment of phase 1 by the P3T team and the whole IVOA community when we report back. We hope to be able to work with the developers of clients in testing these proposals too. With a focus on prototypes and following the regular processes for changes to standards we are aiming to avoid the ‘move-fast-and-break-things’ approach.

One of the aims of this work is to make it easier for standards to evolve in the future as web technology evolves. Our focus very much includes not just the current change but making sure we lay the pathways for future evolution of the standards. We feel that having a machine readable definition of the standards will assist with any future evolution. The question of how we might tackle the next evolution is something we have discussed a lot, and again hope to gain more clarity on in phase 1.

The value of validators such as taplint have been mentioned numerous times in the P3T meetings (and in the presentations that motivated the effort). This is an area we hope to be able to contribute towards, but we understand that off the shelf tools only get us so far. However, tools such as client library generation may well make creation of validators for future standards a bit easier.

We would very much appreciate your assistance with prototyping client and validator impacts as part of phase 1. Thank-you for the offer of help there.

Cheers,
James Dempsey
Senior Developer  |  CSIRO
james.dempsey at csiro.au<mailto:james.dempsey at csiro.au>  |  02 6214 2912


From: dal <dal-bounces at ivoa.net> on behalf of Mark Taylor via dal <dal at ivoa.net>
Date: Thursday, 23 May 2024 at 6:17 AM
To: dal at ivoa.net <dal at ivoa.net>
Subject: P3T
Dear colleagues,

having let the P3T session yesterday sink in I wanted to make a few
comments.

[TL;DR: I've got reservations, but I'm not going to throw rocks in the way]

This proposal will lead to some fragmentation of the VO ecosystem.
 Up till now we have, with a few exceptions
(e.g. PLASTIC->SAMP, SIA1->SIA2), been extremely conservative
about breaking changes to the standards, e.g. Cone Search responses
are still required to include UCD1s to the exclusion of UCD1+s that
replaced UCD1 in around 2006.  The result has been that to a pretty
large extent all the client and server software that has been written
to date continues to interoperate.  For long-lived standards such
as TAP and SCS new clients work with old services and old clients
work with new services, though enhancements introduced in later
versions of standards obviously are not available in those cases.
As far as it goes, I'd say that is a pretty good thing.

The current proposal lobs a cannonball into that approach so that
there is no chance of client/server code written for existing
standards interoperating as it stands with code implementing
the new versions of those standards.  Similarly, client/server
code written to target the new versions will not interoperate
with existing implementations.  The scope is currently TAP and UWS
but it looks like the thin end of a sizeable wedge;
phase 3 will target other standards, and several comments made
during the presentations seemed to indicate that we can expect
another similar round of breaking changes when OpenAPI falls
out of fashion in a few years time, and so on.

The no-legacy-code-left-behind vs. move-fast-and-break-things
difference between approaches is reminiscent to me of a comparison
between development of the Java and Python platforms/languages;
v1.1 of the Java application TOPCAT from 2004 runs happily under
Java 21 from 2021, but running older python code on recent
python platforms is typically much more problematic.
Neither approach is absurd; each has its pros and cons.

Gregory's presentation yesterday acknowledges the issue but I would
say understates the impact a little bit.  Even assuming that the
major clients are adapted to work with both old and new APIs,
the existing "Informal client" sector will be unable to talk
to new services, and existing services will be inaccessible
from any new OpenAPI-based clients; Joshua was keen to point
out that such new clients are now going to be easy to develop.

I can see why the proposed changes appeal to large, well funded service
providers.  But there are downsides from the point of view of legacy
services; newly developed clients will not talk to them and the
hurdle to take advantage of incremental changes in the standards
becomes higher.  This model for standards development may come
back to bite those projects which are currently well-resourced
if they transition to maintenance-only mode in the future.

So, I'm wary of this way forward and I think people should be aware
of the impacts we can expect.  But, maybe the benefits outweigh
the costs.  Judging from the institutional involvement in the P3T
and from most of the audience response at yesterday's session
it looks like the prevailing opinion is that this is the way
we should go, and that it is going to happen.

I wonder whether there is a middle way: rewrite the standards
in terms of OpenAPI but do what we can to make them describe
existing service behaviour, minimising breaking changes.
There are two things being proposed here, and they are separable
to a degree: firstly providing machine-readable (OpenAPI)
definitions of the services, and secondly transitioning those
services to behave in a more modern way.
Page 8 of Joshua's presentation
(https://wiki.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/InterOpMay2024P3T/dal-openapi-tech-overview.pdf)
mentions one thing that can't be done in OpenAPI: case-sensitivity
of parameters.  The other protocol changes described there are
more about how people would do things given a blank sheet of paper
than simply enabling machine-readable interface definitions.
Use of x-www-form-urlencoded parameters is said to be vulnerable to
CSRF, but there was some discussion on zoom about whether this is
really the case, I haven't looked into the details.
Case sensitivity we could probably fudge if we wanted to
(make a breaking but low-impact change to standards requiring no
modification for most code that uses uppercase anyway).
If the issue is really just about OpenAPI compatibility and
machine-readable interface definitions then perhaps it could be
done with significantly less impact than what's being suggested.
If on the other hand the appetite is really to take the
opportunity to update lots of things without regard to backward
compability, that's a different matter.  But we should be clear
about the goals.

Whatever we do decide to do, I want the VO to work as well as possible
for users, so I'd volunteer to prototype client code at an early
stage in topcat and stilts.  I will mention another class of client
that will need to be modified to work in dual mode: validators.
The taplint validator that forms part of stilts is a complex
tool widely used by TAP service deployers to check that their
services are operating according to the specs (I'd be happy for
others to develop a TAP validator, but nobody has), and if it
doesn't work for OpenAPI-based services I predict service
compliance and quality will drop significantly.
It is true that off-the-shelf OpenAPI validators can be used to
do part of the job of service validation in the new picture,
but there's a lot that goes on in taplint that I don't think can be
covered simply on the basis of understanding the OpenAPI contract.

I think this is going to require a significant amount of development
effort from client authors like me, but how much will depend on the
details of the proposal, so I look forward to the development and
results of the proposed Phase 1.

Mark

--
Mark Taylor  Astronomical Programmer  Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk          https://www.star.bristol.ac.uk/mbt/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/attachments/20240523/c671fae3/attachment-0001.htm>