Friday, February 26, 2016

In need of a muse

You often hear about artists having a muse, someone or something that inspires them and pushes them to excel at their craft.  I think that concept applies to programmers as well, although I've never heard someone use it in that context before.

muse

 noun

Definition of MUSE

1
capitalized :  any of the nine sister goddesses in Greek mythology presiding over song and poetry and the arts and sciences
2
:  a source of inspiration; especially :  a guiding genius
(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muse)

I've had a few coworkers over the years whose excellence and creativity pushed me to try harder and push further than I expected myself capable.  I do have a fair bit of intrinsic motivation that sees me through in their absence, but sometimes I wonder how much more I could be if those folks were still around to push me further.  I don't know exactly what it is that makes the relationship so special, and why it doesn't seem to exist for most coworkers.  In those special cases, the coworker just seems to get where you're coming from, but rather than serving as an echo chamber helps you refine and improve your ideas.

The first muse I can remember really pushed me to understand the performance characteristics of the code I was producing.  He understood the internals of the programming language we were using better than I did, and the things he brought up in code reviews helped me to start really considering what my code was doing under the hood.

In another case multiple coworkers actively disliked my muse, but for me, he always cut through the BS and pushed me to do a better job, which is what I personally needed.  He was able to explain what I meant to others so that we actually made the tangible improvements I'd wanted to see but couldn't adequately sell.  He had great ideas but often would not get much beyond the minimum viable product before moving on.  But seeing what he started, I could easily envision where it needed to go and was able to more fully flesh things out.  And then he'd build on the ideas I added.  And so on.  I've always been fairly microcosmic in my approach, and he taught me to look a bit more at the macrocosm.

A different muse was able to talk me through my ideas and whittle out the weak points so I could both better understand them myself and better explain them to others.  He would often just ask "why" and that required me to think more objectively about the issue.  He pushed me to not give up on making improvements to the system even when I was initially shot down by management.  He taught me the value of teaching others, especially those with more decision-making authority, about the value of my ideas, that ideas don't always carry the same weight to others as they do to me solely based on their merits.  He pointed out the flaws in my logic and made me rethink some misguided decisions of my own.  He helped me put things in context.

Maybe calling them muses is inaccurate, but to me that's basically what they were.  I miss them.  I miss how great I felt learning and growing at such a rapid pace.  I miss the rapid feedback we gave each other.  I'm forever grateful for their influence.  I hope I was able to be for them even a fraction of what they were for me.

I'm not dissing my current coworkers; they are great and I'm glad to be on the team I am.  We really are doing some cool things, and the company is far better to work for than any of my previous employers. I guess I'm just feeling a little nostalgia for unreclaimable moments of great influence on my career and life.

Sentiment Analysis and so can you!

I wrote a 3-parter for the Rackspace blog about our Sentiment Analysis sample application.  Mad props to Pankaj Channe (scoring algorithm) and Jeremy Arntz (UI) for working with me on it.


Part 1 (how to set things up):
http://blog.rackspace.com/how-to-twitter-sentiment-analysis-demo-on-rackspace-cloud-big-data/

Part 2 (Spark code):
http://blog.rackspace.com/behind-the-curtain-twitter-sentiment-analysis-demo-sample-app-code/

Part 3 (node.js code):
http://blog.rackspace.com/behind-the-curtain-visual-sentiment-results-with-node-js/

Software Development Best Practices Aren't

Every once in a while I hear someone mention, in relation to developing software, that we should follow "best practices".  I often wonder if the speaker is just couching their suggestion in vague language because they have no idea what it means or if they really think there is some grand list of "best" practices that everyone should follow to guarantee success.  Really, there's two types of programming practices: "hipster" (or bleeding-edge, unproven, ooh-squirrel, or whatever you want to call the new shiny) and "legacy" (the stuff the old guys do because it works, but it's boring, and really a lot of times it's kind of crappy, but it's a known evil).  I think there's some imaginary middle ground there where "best" lives, but it's such a moving target that nobody can hit it.  Just in my time as a developer, web development has gone through at least these "best" practices:


  1. LAMP stack (Linux, Apache, Mysql, Perl)
  2. LAMP stack (P is now PHP)
  3. MVC Frameworks (Ruby on Rails, Django, etc)
  4. Async all the things (memcached, node.js, nginx, etc)
  5. MEAN stack (Mongo, Express.js, Angular, Nginx? - I forget)
  6. Single-page apps
  7. MSA (Micro-Service Architecture)
  8. I could go on, but I won't
Which of those is the "best" practice now?  I honestly don't know.  I'm totally ignoring the insane number of client-side frameworks that have come and gone (prototype/scriptaculous, yui, dojo, jquery, angular, gwt, meteor, I'm forgetting about a thousand).  RSS was cool, then it was all SOAP, but SOAP was too complex, so XML-RPC, but wait, we hate XML, so RSS again, wait Javascript is easy and XML is basically a piece of garbage, so JSON, and why don't we just use HTTP for its designed purpose, so REST all the things!  Chroot works for sharing hardware, but no we should use VMs because security, oh wait VMs actually have a lot more exploits than containers, and containers are more performant, and ooh neat, Docker makes them not painful, and ooh Google uses containers. Configuration management for a fleet of servers is hard, so cfengine, but Perl is icky, so Puppet/Chef, but Ruby is ugly so Ansible/Salt, but centralized servers don't scale that great, so Consul/etcd. And service monitoring, and metrics, and distributed filesystems, and and.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the things in there are neat and could definitely prove themselves long-term, but just given how quickly the community has rallied around some of them and then dropped them like Neil Degrasse Tyson dropped the mic on that clueless rapper just as quickly, I'd guess that you shouldn't be adopting half of them just yet.  And often the better technology loses to the one with better marketing, or the one that's easier to get started with. 

So, the next time you say "best practice" about software development, you might want to clarify what you think is "best".  But be prepared for a lot of people to think you're the dumbest person that ever lived because you don't use whatever pet technology they think has redefined the game.  Because that will happen if you work with other developers or engineers.

Remember, when people say "use best practices", what they really mean is "do things my way".  Software engineering is a relatively young discipline, and technology moves so rapidly that there is no "best" way.  Build it the best way you know how and try to learn a few new things in the process.  Get feedback via code reviews to learn from others with different backgrounds.  Try new things, see where they improve upon the old and where they fall down because they haven't had the time to harden.  Keep moving forward, but don't abandon everything you already know to work well.  That's really the "best" practice you can do.

Good luck!

Monday, June 22, 2015

On being a full-stack web developer

One of the recent buzzwords in the industry is "full-stack engineer" or its many derivatives.  I've seen some backlash against the term to the effect that nobody can possibly excel in all the disciplines necessary to truly be a full-stack engineer, so we should stop using it.  That saddens me a bit because a) I do and b) a lot of people who include the buzzword on their resume are not and because of that, people don't believe me that I am.  I'm not prone to bragging about myself.  I tend to shy away from the spotlight.  But I'm going to put that aside for today.  I'm here to tell you what I think a good full-stack engineer can accomplish, based entirely on examples of my own experience in my career.  At my previous job at Liquid Web, I was hired on as the 3rd developer in the company (not ever, just concurrent, several had come and gone).  With such a small team, there's no room for specialization, you just do what needs to get done and learn what you need.  I excelled in this environment because I had a strong foundation in many of the areas of responsibility and a keen desire to learn the remaining.  I was there before we had any QA.  I was there before we had any ops for our internal software (the whole company were basically ops for the customers, so I have to make that distinction).  Here are some highlights of what I worked on there, from frontend to backend to ops to networking.  I do this to better explain what I mean when I say I'm a full-stack engineer and that being such a thing is possible.

Storm Management Console

We built a web interface for managing your account and servers.  Initially, the Storm product was a single page in our old PIMS web interface, but we quickly realized that the new system was going to be vastly more complex and decided to start from scratch.  Our sole designer in the marketing department delivered me some jpegs of mocked-up screenshots of how the site should look.  From that, I wrote the HTML, CSS, and Javascript required to bring it to life.  This was back before the Javascript renaissance that came after node.js got all hip and trendy, but was after things like jquery were established, so it wasn't the dark ages or anything.  We decided to use jquery for the DOM manipulation, but the rest of the codebase was entirely custom.  It was built first only for our Storm on Demand sub-brand, but eventually it was repurposed through some clever code-sharing to be used for both brands.  To accomplish what we needed, I built the following:

  • A publish/subscribe event system for objects to interact with each other cleanly
  • An AJAX caching system to avoid repeated queries for the same data
  • A CSS/Javascript minification/concatenation system that was cache-friendly (i.e. it would expire the caches whenever you made changes, so you never had stale code, but otherwise would serve from cache)
  • A component framework to allow reuse of self-contained sections of functionality among multiple different pages/views (what I wanted was full data-binding of the model/view layer, and I got close, but not quite)
Most of those things are easily found out of the box now in the new shiny frameworks, but in 2008 they weren't common.  

The Storm API

When we were initially discussing building out the Storm product, we all agreed that we wanted to have an API for customers to interact with our system.  Similarly, we wanted to shift towards a service-oriented architecture, because Amazon (and it being a good idea).  So we decided two things:
  1. We would build out our UI entirely from our API, ensuring that we exposed everything necessary for our customers in our API and giving us much better test coverage for our API.
  2. Our public API would wrap an internal-use APIs that we could expose to other departments to accomplish a true service-oriented architecture internally at the company.
Both of those decisions had performance implications, so we tried to optimized the stack as much as possible, but I was never happy with the overall performance.  I felt, and still do, that we should have done more to streamline that as much as possible to improve the responsiveness in the UI.  But I was vetoed due to more pressing concerns.  Anyway, that's tangential to the discussion at hand. 

I built the framework on which both the internal use and public APIs were built.  I extended the auth/access control system I had previously built to cover the needs for both APIs, including adding rate-limiting and making it reusable for customers as well as employees.  I built the framework that translated the input validation and code documentation into customer-facing public docs.  I built the versioning framework that allowed us to selectively update methods in new versions of the API and still keep the original versions intact for backwards-compatibility.  I came up with and wrote code to enforce our naming conventions that allowed us to provide a very consistent API to our customers.

The Core

At the core of all of our systems at LiquidWeb was a set of libraries that began life in the LiquidWeb billing system.  They expanded to encompass most of the various areas of the company, including tracking things like accounts, IP assignments, server locations, credentials, and, of course, billing records.  The only thing that wasn't part of that system was HelpDesk, which was used to track customer support interactions.  The internal-use API wrapped around these libraries, which contained all of the core business logic for the company.  A few of the projects I worked on here included:

  • Automating the assignment of IP addresses from available pools of IPs
  • Automating configuration of routers and switches via SNMP and SSH for things like VLAN and ACL management, ARP cache flushing, etc.
  • Adding hourly billing to both the old billing system (a colossal hack on top of a cruft-ridden legacy system) and to our new billing system as well
  • Added support for roles to our core framework
  • Profiled and optimized our input validation code that was hit quite frequently
  • Added generic support for many types of relationships to our model classes in our custom framework

Testing

As part of the rollout of Storm, we hired our first QA engineers via internal promotions.  At first, they mostly focused on manual testing, and we were running into a lot of bugs with the provisioning system, so I extended our unit-testing framework to do some automated functional/integration tests of the provisioning system.  We already had good unit test coverage for everything in the API layer and a lot of the core code, but the provisioning system didn't have unit tests.  So, I wrote tests that ran as part of our automated unit test run every night that tested the following:
  • Create a server, wait until it's done, verify that the state is correct in the core system and that you can ping it and log into it via ssh.
  • Resize that server to a larger size and a smaller size, verify that the state is correct in the database, that the billing adjustments were made as expected, and both ping and ssh still work
  • Clone a server, verify that the clone is the same in all respects except for the name and any settings that were overridden as part of the clone process, and verify that both servers are still reachable via ping and ssh
  • Adjust firewall rules, verify that the specified ports are enabled/disabled as expected
  • Delete a server, make sure billing was adjusted, make sure you can no longer ping it or log into it.

Devops

When I started, all of the developers had a single shared development server where we could push edits to test, but we had to manually coordinate that so we didn't overwrite each others changes.  My boss had already begun on trying to build individual development environments, but was too busy fighting fires, so one of the first tasks he gave me was to build my own development environment in a way that could be repeated for others.  So I did.  I had to learn a lot about the existing application stack, that was different from what I had used in the past (fastcgi vs mod_perl).  When we decided to build out a staging environment, I pointed out that we should take the opportunity to automate environment deployments so we wouldn't have to keep manually updating servers.  Both Chef and Puppet were in alpha/beta stages of their development, and cfengine seemed too complex for what we needed, so I ended up writing some scripts to automate the installation of our software and the configuration of the servers we deployed on.  I called them the push scripts, because they controlled our code pushing process.  I iterated on them as we built out the staging environment as a first step, and eventually we migrated all of our production and dev environments to use them as well.  It was built on a layered YAML configuration file, where you could paint broad strokes at the application, service, or environment level, then have environment or server-specific overrides for differences.  Some people found the layering confusing, so maybe it wasn't the best idea in retrospect, but it was a powerful concept once you wrapped your head around it.  It prevented a lot of repetition of the same values for different environments or applications that shared the same underlying settings.  The values in that file would be used to populate templates or passed into modules that would then use the values to decide how to install and configure their service.  I could write a whole blog post about the architecture, and I might some day, but it was very flexible and saved us a lot of headaches. I've since used Chef and Jenkins to do much of the same things, and I have to say that for our needs, using our push scripts was much easier than Chef, and it ran in a fraction of the time that Chef takes to do an update, so sometimes having something that's tailored just for your needs has benefits.

What I didn't do

The only area that I didn't work on much was the server provisioning system itself.  I would have liked to, but when we started the project, the other developer didn't have much frontend experience, so he ended up building the provisioning system and I handled the rest. As the team expanded, we kind of took lead on those areas separately and didn't cross-pollinate much. I did contribute some bug fixes here and there, and helped diagnose many issues through my automated testing, but other than that I didn't get the opportunity.  Thankfully my current job affords me the opportunity to work on a provisioning engine, and while it's at a different level (provisioning clusters vs servers - we rely on the cloud to provision the actual servers), many of the same concepts still apply.

I apologize if this comes across as grandstanding or bravado; that's not my intent.  I just get tired of the rhetoric.  I've heard/read many people saying that "full stack is impossible" and that people proclaiming to qualify are lying.  I can't vouch for anyone else, but I can vouch for myself.  I am a full-stack engineer.  I don't know everything about everything; I know very little about systems programming, mobile app development, or desktop application development.  I'm not the guy to build the next big datastore, or write a new OS, come up with a new machine learning algorithm, or devise the next big protocol.  For web-development and something-as-a-service development, I do know and have worked on the entire stack, including devops.  I can build on the core concepts developed by those with more knowledge of theory than I have and create great software for actual users.  I've spent the hours fighting with antiquated browsers that cling to market share (*cough* IE6 *cough*).  I've dug deep on extremely complicated billing issues to figure out why we billed a customer incorrectly and how to correct it. I've profiled and optimized frequently-used algorithms to speed them up by as much as 80x (* gains not typical).  I've built authorization and access control systems from scratch.  I don't personally find any of these things amazing.  I kind of expect other developers to just dive in and learn what they need in order to do what they need to get done, but I'm learning that not everyone is this way.   For those that aren't, don't assume others are the same as you.  Some people do dive in head first and learn all of the disciplines around web-development enough to be called full-stack engineers.

My current position doesn't afford me the opportunity to work on the entire stack, sadly, and I've recently realized that as screwed up as web development can be, I do miss it.  It's always exciting to see your creations come to life in a browser, and not having control over that aspect weighs on me a bit.  Maybe some day.  In the meantime, I'm learning a lot about data stores and having fun finally working on a provisioning engine.

Some random thoughts on webapp performance

A recent discussion got me thinking back in terms of website development, so I thought I'd jot down a few ideas that I'd like to try to implement when I get some free tuits. Maybe they'll spur some creativity in others, or at least you can tell me why I'm insane and this couldn't possibly work.

Server-side vs client-side rendering

Back when node.js was springing up in popularity, a lot of the focus around it was to do with how it uses an asynchronous event-loop to manage a lot of connections per process (since Javascript is single-threaded, parallelism is only managed by pre-emptive multitasking similar to how things worked back in the Windows 3.1 days).  I was confused by this for a few reasons.  Why not use process pooling to run multiple copies of the node server then?  You'd be able to peg each core with a separate process at least, and at least improve how many tasks you could do in parallel.  This would at least scale the number of requests you could serve simultaneously and maximize your hardware use.  Have each listen on a different port, throw a loadbalancer in front, voila!  Maybe they're doing that now, but there was no talk of it at the time.

Anyway, I've gone on a tangent.  For me, the killer use-case for having Javascript on the server is to share libraries on both server and client.  On the server side, your data source would be a database or an API or whatever you're using, on the client side, the server's REST interface would be the data source (or if you set up CORS, the original REST API could be the source on the client as well).  This would buy you a few things.

Pre-render the whole page server-side.  

One of the biggest problems with SPAs (Single Page Apps) is it completely offloads the rendering to the client.  You send down a minimal set of javascript code and templates, then the javascript code fires off a bunch of AJAX requests to pull down the data and renders the templates.  This works well on modern laptops and desktops, but for phones, resources are much more constrained.  Not only are you doing all of the rendering on their CPU, you're hammering the network with all of the AJAX requests to pull in data.  Rather than do that, you could, using the same exact rendering path as the client-side, pre-render the full page's initial state and send only that over the network.  Initial page load times will be much faster, and no more "the page is here, but wait while we load the data" frustration.

Render updates client-side.  

Now, here's the rub.  Once you have the page downloaded, you don't want to have to hit the server to re-render the whole page every time something changes.  That would just be silly.  Since you've got the same rendering paths available client-side, everything being Javascript and all, you could simply re-render the section of the page that was updated by the new data received by whatever AJAX request you sent.  Smaller, incremental updates done with a minimum of overhead.

It seems that my ideas were a bit ahead of their time.  I had a conversation with a coworker about this back in 2012 or so, and a recent poll suggests that this sort of dual-rendering path is finally becoming popular.

https://medium.com/javascript-scene/javascript-scene-tech-survey-d2449a529ed

The only advantage left for SPAs is that you can push out all of your content to the edges by using a CDN, but you can't push your REST interface to the edge, so all of those AJAX requests to grab data are still hitting the same limitation.  You could still put all of your Javascript and templates in a CDN and get some of the benefit there, I suppose.

Queued AJAX requests/multipart REST

Maybe something like this exists, but a quick googling hasn't found any results based on keywords I thought to look for.  I was thinking more about how to reduce the number of requests required by a website.  For context, at my previous job, we had a UI that was broken down into a bunch of components, and each component was responsible for updating itself via AJAX.  Some did this based on a timer, others did this based on a publish/subscribe framework that would alert them when their data source had potentially changed.  I wanted to expand this to use websockets to listen for updates coming in from the server-side as well, in case you had multiple users accessing the same account at the same time, but that use-case wasn't deemed common enough to justify the development effort, and the idea sat.  Anyway, in this case, we were very often firing off a bunch of AJAX GET requests to pull the latest data and re-render sections of the page.  So, given a framework like that, which I imagine isn't all that uncommon, I was thinking, "what if REST had a multipart GET request to grab a bunch of resources in a single request".  I haven't fully fleshed the idea out, but similar to how you upload files using multipart/form-data, you could do a multipart GET request.  The request would look something like:
GET /
Content-Type: multipart/rest; boundary=----------------------------12345
------------------------------12345
GET /resource/A
------------------------------12345
GET /resource/B
And the response would be something like:
Content-Type: multipart/rest; boundary=----------------------------12345
------------------------------12345
Location: /resource/A
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 10
Status: 200 OK
{"a": "b"}
------------------------------12345
Location: /resource/B
Status: 404 Not Found
This would avoid the overhead of the network and HTTP protocol for all the additional requests and let you get a bunch of resources in a single request.  Since this would require modifying the HTTP spec, something a little easier would be to just have an API endpoint that does this for you in a single body:
GET /multiple?resource=/resource/A&resource=/resource/B
And the response would just encapsulate all of the resources in a single body:
Content-type: application/json
Status: 200 OK
{ "/resource/A": {"a": "b"}, "/resource/B": null }
To take advantage of something like this and still let your development be sane, you'd need a construct to queue up your AJAX requests rather than firing them immediately, then you could fire off a single "multiple" request on a predefined interval, say 100ms.  Something like this (this code would not work as-is):
var queue = [];
function get(url) {
    queue.push(url);
}
function parse_multiple(response) {
    for url in response {
        event.fire('data-received', url, response[url]);
    }
}
function multiget() {
    var query_params = ""; // build the query params from queue
    queue = [];
    $.ajax('GET', '/multiple?' + query_params, parse_multiple);
}
setTimeout(100, multiget);

Now, every 100ms you fire off a single AJAX request to get everything that needs to be updated rather than firing off a ton of ad-hoc AJAX requests for every individual item on the page.  Seems like that could work, but I haven't yet put it to the test.

On a similar note, to reduce the amount of redrawing you do in the browser, you could queue up DOM changes and do all of them at once on a timer as well.  That's a little more difficult to pull off, but if you built the new dom nodes in memory and just pointed them at the node that they were replacing, you could cache that in an object and since redraws only happen in between function calls (due to the single-threaded nature of Javascript, it has to wait until it exits user code to execute the browser code, unless something has changed recently).  So you could replace all the pending nodes in a single function and then let the browser redraw the whole thing after your function exited.  One redraw every 100ms is better than 100 redraws at random intervals, and fast enough that the user wouldn't notice the lag.  I dunno, maybe I'm taking crazy pills, since I haven't seen anyone attempt to do something like this in the major frameworks (or maybe they did while I wasn't looking).

Ok, good, I wrote those down so I can stop thinking about them and get back to what I'm supposed to be working on.  Hopefully some day I'll find out if they're feasible ideas or not.

Monday, January 12, 2015

A programming workout buddy

Personal trainers and fitness gurus always recommend getting a workout buddy to help keep you motivated to work on your fitness goals.  It makes sense.  You inevitably hit a lull and want to slip back into old, bad habits, and give up.  If you have a buddy who is also motivated, hopefully you won't both hit a lull at the same point, and you can cross-motivate.  So, why can't we apply this same idea to other areas, like programming?  Programming takes a certain amount of rigor to learn, requires a lot of motivation to keep going, and has amazing benefits if learned well.

One of my goals this year, and every year for a while, is to learn a new programming language.  I guess I did learn Python for my job last year, but it didn't really stretch me much, coming from another dynamic, interpreted language like Perl.  So, this year, I've decided to seek out a programming workout buddy to help push me along, and vice-versa.  So, I pinged a good friend that I thought might be interested, and he liked the idea.

We're going to learn Rust, which is an up-and-coming systems language from Mozilla.  We debated between a few different languages, but decided Rust would push us both to learn more fundamental CS stuff that is abstracted away from you in the other languages we were debating among.  Maybe we'll go back to some of the others afterwards.

We haven't worked out all the specifics yet, but the first part will be a sort of book club where we choose a common set of learning material and meet at a regular interval to discuss it.  After that, we'll probably pick some algorithms or data structures to implement, then compare results.  After that, who knows, maybe team up on a side project or something.  It's a bit loose and undefined at the moment, but that's how I roll.  Wish us luck.

If you want to join us, let me know.  We're just starting up this week.  I'd like to avoid having too large a group, but we can probably accommodate a few folks.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Introducing python-ambariclient

Apache Ambari is an open-source project that configures and manages Hadoop clusters.  The product I work on at work configures and manages Hadoop clusters... in the cloud (ooooh).  Now that Ambari has matured enough to be stable and have a fairly usable API, we've decided to discontinue the part of our product that overlaps with Ambari and use and contribute to that project instead.  Our product isn't going anywhere, just the ~50% of our codebase that does pretty much exactly what Ambari does will be replaced with Ambari and we'll put those resources we would spend building and maintaining our own code into improving Ambari.  Given that Ambari's primary audience is Java developers, their main efforts at a client library are written in Groovy, another JVM-backed language that works with Java seamlessly.  They also have a Python client, but it's fairly immature, incomplete, and buggy.  Efforts to contribute to it proved onerous, mostly due to concerns about breaking backwards-compatibility, so we decided that I would create a new client that we'd release to the public.  And so I'm here to announce our Python Ambari client libraries, aptly named python-ambariclient.

There were a few things I wanted out of the client that I felt we weren't able to accomplish easily with the existing one:
  1. An easy-to-intuit, consistent interface that mimicked the API structure.
  2. Native support for polling the long-running background operations that are common to working with Ambari.
  3. Easy to add new types of objects to as the Ambari API added new features.
  4. Minimize the number of actual HTTP requests executed.
  5. An ORM-style interface that felt natural to use coming from projects like SQLAlchemy and libcloud.
To accomplish all those goals, I felt like a vaguely promises-style API would suit it best.  This would allow us to delay firing off HTTP requests until you actually needed the response data to proceed, and I wanted the method-chaining style reminiscent of Javascript projects like jquery.  I was able to accomplish both, and I think it turned out pretty well.  It's a good example of what I've always wanted in an API client.  So, let's dive in to some of the design decisions.

Delegation and Collections and Models, oh my

The main API client is just an entry point that delegates all of the actual logic to a set of collection objects, each of which represents a collection of resources on the Ambari server.  For those who are used to REST APIs, this might make sense, but here's some examples to show what I mean:
# get all of the users in the system
users = ambari.users
for user in users:
    print user.user_name
# get all of the clusters in the system
clusters = ambari.clusters
for cluster in clusters:
    print cluster.identifier
The collections are iterable objects that contain a list of model objects, each representing a resource on the server.  There are some helper methods on the collections to do bulk operations, such as:
# delete all users (this will likely fail or break everything if it doesn't)
ambari.users.delete()
# update all users with a new password (bad idea, but hey)
ambari.users.update(password='new-password')
If you want to get a specific model out of a collection, that's easily accomplished by passing a single parameter into the accessor for the collection.
# get the admin user
admin_user = ambari.users('admin')
# get a specific cluster
cluster = ambari.clusters(cluster_name)
# get a specific host
host = ambari.hosts(host_name)
Additionally, you can get a subset of a collection by passing in multiple arguments.
# get a subset of all hosts
hosts = ambari.hosts([hostname1, hostname2, hostname3])
So, this is just the basic entry point model collections.  In Ambari, there's a large hierarchy of related resource and sub-resources.  Users have privileges, clusters have hosts, services have components, etc.  To handle that, each model object can have a set of related collections for the objects that are contained by it.  So, for example:
# get all hosts on a specific cluster
ambari.cluster(cluster_name).hosts
# get a specific host on that cluster
host = ambari.cluster(cluster_name).hosts(host_name)
Some of the hierarchies are very deep.  These are the deepest examples I can find so far:
# get a repo for a specific OS for a specific version of a specific stack
ambari.stacks(stack_name).versions(stack_version).operating_systems(os_type).repositories(repo_id)
# get a component for a specific service for a specific version of a specific stack
ambari.stacks(stack_name).versions(stack_version).services(service_name).components(component_name)
Obviously those are outliers, in general use you only need to go one or two levels deep for most things, but it's good to know the pattern holds even for deep hierarchies.

When you get to the individual model objects, they behave much like a normal ORM.  They have CRUD methods like create, update, delete, and they use attribute-based accessors for the fields returned by the API for that resource.  For example:
cluster = ambari.clusters(cluster_name)
print cluster.cluster_id
print cluster.health_report
There's no fancy data validation or type coercion like in SQLAlchemy, just a list of field names that define which attributes are available, but really that's all that I think is necessary in an API client.  The server will do more robust validation, and I didn't see any places where automatic coercion made sense.  What I mean by automatic coercion is automatically converting datetime fields into datetime objects, or things of that nature.  I'm not doing that, and it's possible that that decision turns out to be shortsighted, but I'm guessing the simplicity of the current design will win out.

Wait for it...

Because the client is a promises style API, it doesn't necessarily populate the objects when you expect.  For the most part, if it can't accomplish what you're requesting without populating the object with data from the server, it will do it automatically for you.  Many operations also are fairly asynchronous, and what you as a user really care about is that you are safe to operate on a resource.  To accomplish that, there is a method called wait() on each object.  Calling wait() will basically do whatever is required for that model or collection to be in a "ready" state for you to act on it.  Whether that's simply just requesting data from the server or waiting for a background operation to complete or waiting for a host to finish registering itself with the Ambari server, the method is the same.  .wait():
# wait for a recently-added host to be available in Ambari
ambari.hosts(host_name).wait()
# wait for a bootstrap call to finish and all hosts to be available
ambari.bootstrap.create(hosts=[hostname1, hostname2], **other_params).wait()

I have a request

In the Ambari API, if your POST or PUT command triggers a background operation, a 'request' object is returned in the response body.  It will look something like this:
{
  "href" : "http://c6401.ambari.apache.org:8080/api/v1/clusters/testcluster/requests/1",
  "Requests" : {
    "id" : 1,
    "status" : "InProgress"
  }
}
If any API call returns this information, the Ambari client will automatically recognize that and store that information away.  Then, if you call .wait() on the object, it will poll the Ambari API until that request has completed.  At some point, it will start throwing exceptions if the request doesn't complete successfully, but that logic hasn't been built in yet.
# install all registered components on a host and wait until that's done
ambari.clusters(cluster_name).hosts(host_name).components.install().wait()
And to be consistent and obey the principle of least surprise, you can chain off wait() calls to do further actions, so this also works:
# install and start all registered components on a host and wait until it's done
ambari.clusters(cluster_name).hosts(host_name).components.install().wait().start().wait()
It's not generally a great idea to just have a huge long method chain like that, but it's possible.  It would be written better like:
components = ambari.clusters(cluster_name).hosts(host_name).components
components.install().wait()
components.start().wait()

Wait, that's it?

I wanted it to be extremely easy to add new model classes to the client, because that was one of my biggest complaints with the existing client.  So most of the common logic is built into two base classes, called QueryableModel and DependentModel.  Now defining a model class is as simple as defining a few pieces of metadata, for example:
class Cluster(base.QueryableModel):
    path = 'clusters'
    data_key = 'Clusters'
    primary_key = 'cluster_name'
    fields = ('cluster_id', 'cluster_name', 'health_report', 'provisioning_state',
              'total_hosts', 'version', 'desired_configs',
              'desired_service_config_versions')
    relationships = {
        'hosts': ClusterHost,
        'requests': Request,
        'services': Service,
        'configurations': Configuration,
        'workflows': Workflow,
    }
  1. 'path' is the piece of the URL that should be appended to access this model.  i.e. /api/v1/clusters
  2. 'data_key' defines which part of the returned data structure contains the data for this particular model.  The Ambari API returns the main model's data in a subordinate structure because it also returns a lot of related objects.
  3. 'primary_key' is the field that is used to generate the URLs to a specific resource.  i.e. /api/v1/clusters/cluster_name
  4. 'fields' is a list of field names that should be returned in the model's data.
  5. 'relationships' is a list of accessors that should build related collection objects. i.e. ambari.clusters(cluster_name).hosts == collection of ClusterHost models
Some objects are not represented by actual URLs on the server and are only returned as related objects to other models.  These are called DependentModels in my client.  Here's a pretty simple one:
class BlueprintHostGroup(base.DependentModel):
    fields = ('name', 'configurations', 'components')
    primary_key = 'name'

class Blueprint(base.QueryableModel):
    path = 'blueprints'
    data_key = 'Blueprints'
    primary_key = 'blueprint_name'
    fields = ('blueprint_name', 'stack_name', 'stack_version')
    relationships = {
        'host_groups': BlueprintHostGroup,
    }
When you get a specific blueprint, it returns something like this:
{
  "href" : "http://c6401.ambari.apache.org:8080/api/v1/blueprints/blueprint-multinode-default",
  "configurations" : [
    {
      "nagios-env" : {
        "properties" : {
          "nagios_contact" : "greg.hill@rackspace.com"
        }
      }
    }
  ],
  "host_groups" : [
    {
      "name" : "namenode",
      "configurations" : [ ],
      "components" : [
        {
          "name" : "NAMENODE"
        }
      ],
      "cardinality" : "1"
    }
  ],
  "Blueprints" : {
    "blueprint_name" : "blueprint-multinode-default",
    "stack_name" : "HDP",
    "stack_version" : "2.1"
  }
}
As you can see, the 'Blueprints' key is the 'data_key', so that structure has the data related to the blueprint itself.  The 'host_groups' and 'configurations' structures are related objects that don't have URLs associated with them.  For those, we can define DependentModel classes to automatically expand them into usable objects.  So, now this works:
for host_group in ambari.blueprints(blueprint_name).host_groups:
    print host_group.name
    for component in host_group.components:
        print component['name']
I tried to make things act consistently even where they weren't consistent in the API.  It should be noted that objects that are backed by URLs are also returned in related collections like this, and the client will automatically use that data to prepopulate the related collections to avoid more HTTP requests.  For example, here is a very trimmed down cluster response:
{
  "href" : "http://c6401.ambari.apache.org:8080/api/v1/clusters/testcluster",
  "Clusters" : {
  },
  "requests" : [
    {
      "href" : "http://c6401.ambari.apache.org:8080/api/v1/clusters/testcluster/requests/1",
      "Requests" : {
        "cluster_name" : "testcluster",
        "id" : 1
      }
    }
  ],
  "services" : [
    {
      "href" : "http://c6401.ambari.apache.org:8080/api/v1/clusters/testcluster/services/GANGLIA",
      "ServiceInfo" : {
        "cluster_name" : "testcluster",
        "service_name" : "GANGLIA"
      }
    }
  ]
} 
As you can see, both the 'requests' and 'services' related collections were returned here.  So, if you were to then, do:
for service in ambari.clusters(cluster_name).services:
    print service.service_name
It would only have to do the single GET request to populate the cluster object, then use the data returned there to populate the service objects.  There is a caveat here.  When getting collections in the Ambari API, it generally only returns a minimal subset of information, usually just the primary_key and possibly the primary_key of its parent (in this case, service_name and cluster_name).  If you want to access any other fields on that object, it will have to do another GET call to populate the remaining fields.  It does this for you automatically:
for service in ambari.clusters(cluster_name).services:
    print service.maintenance_state
'maintenance_state' was not among the fields returned by the original call, so it will do a separate GET request for  http://c6401.ambari.apache.org:8080/api/v1/clusters/testcluster/services/GANGLIA to populate that information and then return it.

Smoothing out the rough edges

The Ambari API is mostly consistent, but there are some warts from old designs or one-off pieces.  The bootstrap API and the configurations are the worst offenders in this regard.  All efforts were made to make those areas behave like the other areas as much as possible.  I didn't want the user to have to know that, for example, bootstrap requests aren't the same as every other asynchronous task, or that even when a bootstrap finishes the hosts are not visible to Ambari until their agents have booted up and registered themselves.  So, I overloaded the wait() method on those objects so that it just does the needful.
# wait until these hosts are in a ready state
ambari.hosts([hostname1, hostname2]).wait()
Similarly, adding a host to a cluster normally involves manually assigning all of the components, but an upcoming Ambari feature will make it so you simply have to pass in a blueprint and host_group and it will automatically do it for you.  I pre-emptively smoothed this out in the client so you can do this now, it just involves a few more API requests to be made automatically on your behalf.  Wherever things are inconsistent on the API server, my client makes them consistent to the user.
# add a new host to an existing host_group definition
ambari.clusters(cluster_name).hosts.create(host_name, blueprint=blueprint_name, host_group=host_group_name)
When the server-side is updated to include support for this, I can simply pass the information along and let it sort it out.  There are a few other cases where warts in the API were smoothed over, but for the most part the idioms in the client matched up with the API server pretty well.

Where do we go from here?

There was one feature that I really wanted to have that I wasn't able to wrap my head around sufficiently to implement in a clean, intuitive way.  That is the ability to act on collections of collections.  Wouldn't it be awesome if this worked?
# restart all components on all hosts on all clusters
ambari.clusters.hosts.components.restart().wait()
The .wait() would get a list of clusters, then get a list of hosts per cluster in parallel, then get a list of components for each host in parallel, then call the restart API method for each of those, gobble up all the request objects, and wait until all of them completed before returning.  This should be possible, but it will require a bit more thought into how to implement it sanely, and there wasn't enough bang for the buck for our use-cases to justify spending the time right now.  But maybe I'll get back to it later.

What's it to me?

I realize Ambari is a niche product, and that most of this post will be gobbledy-guck for most of you, but I think the general principles behind the client's design apply well to any REST-based API client.  I hope that people find them useful and maybe lift a few of them for their own projects.  Most of all, I think this is probably the best client library I've ever written, and it embodies pretty much everything I've wanted in a client library in the past.  We plan on rewriting the client library for our own API in a similar fashion and releasing that to the public in the near future*.

* Usual disclaimer about forward-looking statements and all that.  I make no guarantee that this will actually happen.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Promise-based REST API clients

In software development, the concept of promises (sometimes also called futures) is deceivingly simple.  There's a pretty good wikipedia article that explains it better than I do, and the opening line is about a good a summary as I can think of:
In computer science, future, promise, and delay refer to constructs used for synchronizing in some concurrent programming languages. They describe an object that acts as a proxy for a result that is initially unknown, usually because the computation of its value is yet incomplete.
What that means in normal people English is that you call a method to do something (i.e. compute a value, gather some data, etc) and instead of doing what you requested immediately and making you wait, it returns a "promise" that it will eventually do what you requested.  While this is generally done to make concurrency easier, I think the concept works well for hierarchical REST API clients as well.

Let me explain.  No, no, there is too much.  Let me sum up.

REST APIs are generally hierarchical.  You often see structures like:

GET /artists - get a list of artists
GET /artists/metallica - get the artist Metallica
GET /artists/metallica/albums - get a list of albums by Metallica

And so on.  What I wanted from an API client was to do something along the lines of this Python snippet:
for album in client.artists('metallica').albums:
    album.delete() # take that Metallica

What I didn't want to happen in the above snippets was to do all of these HTTP requests

GET /artists
GET /artists/metallica
GET /artists/metallica/albums
DELETE /artists/metallica/albums/killemall
DELETE /artists/metallica/albums/ridethelightning
...

But instead just do:

DELETE /artists/metallica/albums

(or if the API didn't support bulk-delete in that way, just do a single GET followed by a series of DELETE calls)

So, enter promises.  If each method in that chain simply returned the promise of fetching the underlying data, I could chain off of it and only actually fire off HTTP requests for the things I actually needed to get.

I should've taken the blue pill

So, that makes pretty good sense, but that's not all.  For your 3 easy payments of $29.95 you get not only this nice, easy-to-use method chaining and minimal HTTP request overhead, but also implicit parallelized requests as well.  What if, given the above example, you could also do something like:
for album in client.artists.albums:
     print album.tracklisting
And that just automatically did basically this:
  1. GET /artists
  2. for every $artist, GET /artists/$artist/albums (in parallel)
  3. for every album from every $artist, print the tracklisting
Now, let's see how deep this rabbit hole can go:
for track in client.artists.albums.tracks:
    print "%d - %s" % (track.number, track.name)
  1. GET /artists
  2. for every $artist, GET /artists/$artist/albums (in parallel)
  3. for every $album from every $artist, GET /artists/$artist/albums/$album/tracks (in parallel)
  4. for every track for every $album from every $artist, print the number and name

I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley

I think this is a really powerful idea that could make an API client very easy to use and actually, you know, fun.  But maybe I'm alone here, since every API client ever is just the same old boring bunch of methods, sometimes in namespaces, sometimes with actual model-style classes for the resources, if you're lucky.  Granted, this idiom could be abused to fire off hundreds of HTTP requests in parallel and potentially overwhelm the server, either by accident or malice.  But, in my opinion the ease-of-use outweighs the potential for mass destruction.  I'd like to see a client that works this way, even if I have to build it myself (especially if I get to build it).  I've managed to build a client that does the first half of this, and does it pretty well IMO (blog post coming soon).  I have a good idea of how to accomplish the second part, but I haven't yet overcome the effort-to-payoff ratio on that one.  It would be cool, and potentially useful, but it's a lot of work for such a small benefit.  Still, that itch needs scratching, and one day it shall be scratched.  Even though I realize that maybe it means I'm insane.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Call me Elmer

My wife commented to me the other day that I'm really good at picking up the slack.  She's kind of slammed with a lot of things right now, and I just do what needs to be done to make things work at home.  It got me thinking, and I think that's really me in a nutshell, both personally and professionally.  When I was interviewing with Rackspace, they asked me what role I filled on teams and I said I was The Glue.  I'm not sure my interviewer really understood what I meant by that and whether it was a good thing, so let me elaborate.  I make sure what needs to get done gets done; I bind together the pieces and make sure things stick.  

To me there are a few archetypes that most good programmers seem to fall into.  Many end up having attributes from multiple archetypes, but generally one is the most prominent.  I'm not just The Glue, I'm also some other things, but what's most obvious and where my biggest contributions come is in being The Glue.  I'm going to avoid talking about the negative archetypes like The Hero, The Recluse, The Sheep, and The Manchild, but certainly even good programmers can revert into those at times, too.

The Glue


A glue programmer is very valuable.  They are skilled in a wide variety of tasks, they pick things up quickly, and they're fearless, or else they wouldn't be able to be The Glue.  The Glue binds everything together and makes sure everything holds up.  The Glue is selfless, as they care more about the project or team's success than about their own individual satisfaction.  They'll do the mundane work that nobody else wants to do, not because they can't do more interesting things, but because it needs to be done for the project to succeed.  They tend to flitter about between systems and responsibilities and make sure the details are being covered.  Their weakness is their feeling of responsibility over everything can make them avoid getting too deep in any one particular area, lest something else falter.  Because of that, they're not the best choice for doing upfront architectural work, because that requires a lot of dedicated focus on a specific problem for a long period of time.  They can lose sight of the big picture while they're focusing on keeping everything together.

The Architect


Architects really enjoy thinking about problems and coming up with solutions.  They're good at looking at things from a distance and seeing how all the components will need to work together to make the whole function.  They're great at starting projects, but often are not as good at finishing them.  When they get down to the details and have to make the hard decisions about compromising their vision, they can be paralyzed.  All projects require some tradeoffs to get finished, and often they feel that this betrays their artistic ideals.  They're a great resource to have, but when you have too many, you'll notice a lot of grand, lofty ideas being discussed and planned with little actual end result to show for it.  These are the types that do well in interviews because they like coming up with solutions to challenging problems, but if they don't also have some bits of other archetypes in them, they'll end up spending all their time coming up with the perfect theoretical solution without actually shipping software.

The Builder


A builder is perfect to pair with an architect, because they're great at seeing another person's vision and bringing it to life. They are good at tracking the details and ensuring constant progress on the project.  They can be known as finishers, and are very task oriented.  They tend to be pretty reliable at making visible progress on projects and getting things out the door on time. They know when to make tradeoffs to ensure the project gets completed, but sometimes they can be known to cut corners too much.  The flipside to that it that they can sometimes, in their rush to get something functional out there, build something out of duct-tape and glue, or something so convoluted and cumbersome to maintain that nobody else dare work on it.  When guided by a quality architect, they're extremely useful, though, and will make sure that you have something to show for all those lofty ideas.

The Firefighter


Production's down?  Who you gonna call?  The firefighter, that's who.  They're great at jumping into a tense situation, keeping composure, finding the problem, and fixing it.  They're not afraid to put a band-aid solution in place to keep things going while they work on a more permanent solution.  That can break down when there are too many fires for them to actually get to the permanent solution, as the adrenaline of the chase will keep them putting bandaids on everything rather than solving fundamental problems.  They are great at debugging systems and understanding their complex interactions so that they can see where the problem is quickly and resolve it.  They should not be confused with The Hero, who rushes to get things out and then gets praised for quickly band-aiding the problem that he created to begin with.  I often refer to that as someone who jumps on the grenade that they had thrown.

The Fixer


This is the guy you call in when there's blood and guts everywhere and the cops are on the way.  You can add a fixer to a delayed project and actually negate the mythical man-month, as they will turn things around.  They're not afraid to step on toes or even run people over if they have to, as long as it serves to move things forward.  In doing that, they can burn bridges and drive people away, even though their intent is more altruistic and less personal than how it's received.  They're still useful to have as they can rescue a doomed project and turn it into something useful for the company, just be aware that they might also drive some people from the team in the process.  Then again, if those people were finishing their projects, you wouldn't have had to call in the fixer to begin with.

What are you?


I think I fall pretty well into The Glue for the most part, with a good chunk of The Builder, and maybe a touch of the others.  I don't enjoy having to be The Fixer, as I know I've offended some coworkers when I've needed to do that (usually when asked, but sometimes of my own volition).  Then again, at other times it's worked out wonderfully when those on the doomed project really wanted the help.  To me, the team is paramount.  If your lack of progress is going to prevent the team from succeeding, I'll try to give you a chance to correct course by offering help.  I can't stop you from hanging yourself once you have enough rope, though, and I'll be the jerk who takes over your project if I have to.  I'd prefer you didn't make that necessary, and hope that you don't take it personally.  Maybe that makes me a bad person.

Where do you fit?  Do you disagree with my self-assessment (assuming you've worked with me)? Or am I way off-base in my over-generalized archetypes?

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Inconsistent naming in Computer Science

I can't count the number of times I start finally reading about a concept or technique and realize that I already know it, just under a different name.  Currying is sometimes called partial application.  Dictionaries in Python are hashes in Perl, associative arrays (or just objects, depending on how pedantic you are) in Javascript, HashMaps in Java (I think?), and who-knows-what-else in other languages.  Lambdas are just anonymous functions, as far as I can tell.  Promises are called futures in some cliques.  Mixins vs roles (hint: they're the same thing).  Aspect-oriented programming is also referred to as monkey-patching.  I can keep going, but I think you get the point.

I think it would vastly improve interviews, and conversations with coworkers, if we could all agree on a single name for all these concepts we are expected to know.  But I guess that's life.  Soda vs pop, anyone?

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Computer Science vs Software Development

Recently a good friend of mine, whom I consider among the best programmers I've ever worked with, interviewed for my team and was rejected by my coworkers.  I don't necessarily fault my coworkers for this; they were doing the best they could with the information they had.  It was a close decision, but it made me sad that my coworkers couldn't see in him what I did.  It took me a while to process it, and I went into my shell for a bit during that time (moreso than normal).  I eventually came to a realization about myself upon reflection of that experience that has helped me better understand my own value, because I feel like that friend and I have a lot in common.  Here it is: I am a great software developer, but a mediocre computer scientist.  I've been trying to improve more on the latter lately, which is why I upgraded myself to mediocre.  Maybe software developer isn't the right name for what I mean, but it was the best one I could think of.  I think to many people these skills are one and the same, but to me they really aren't, so let me clarify a bit what I feel are the differences.

The prime directive

Computer science focuses on algorithms and data structures, whereas software development focuses on ease-of-use and maintainability.  Computer science focuses on low-level data structures and algorithms like search and sort.  I'm not saying these aren't important, but I can count on the number of billions of dollars I have how many times I've implemented any of those in my career (i.e. none).  I vaguely remember some of them, and I've read about them to bone up for interviews, but in actual programming jobs in my industry, they come up precisely never.  Every language I've ever used in a professional capacity has them built in, and if they don't then it's too inefficient to implement them yourself, so you just use whatever builtin is closest and make it work.  It's way more efficient to offload the searching to the datastore in nearly every single case.

Software development tends to focus more on things like having consistency in the API so that other people can develop an intuitive sense of your code (i.e. if other objects behave a certain way, they can reasonably expect similar behavior from related objects).  It doesn't matter if you implemented the fastest search algorithm ever, if one object calls the method 'search' and other objects calls it 'find'.  That kind of stuff makes it painful to use your system, increases cognitive overhead, and sadly is way too often ignored or accepted in the industry.  Software development is more concerned with others being able to grok your code quickly so they can navigate it and add features or fix bugs.  Things like consistent naming conventions, good use of namespaces, separation of concerns, etc, are subjects of focus. Most importantly, you have to know how to empathize with a consumer of your system.  Put yourself in their shoes; how would you want it to behave if you didn't understand the inner workings of the system?  Are you leaking your abstractions (i.e. does the user have to know how the internals of your system work in order to use it effectively)? The user doesn't care about the differences between bubble sort and insertion sort, unless it means that you're getting them responses faster and/or more accurately than before.

Optimization is the root of all evil

Computer science optimizes for raw algorithmic performance, whereas software development optimizes for responsiveness and user experience.  In my experience as a developer, I've had the opportunity to optimize a lot of slow code.  I once dropped a rate-limiting algorithm from about 80ms to 1ms through a few optimization iterations.  During those iterations, the algorithmic complexity didn't really change all that much, but the performance sure did.  I couldn't even honestly tell you what the Big-O was on either end of the algorithm because it was fairly complex and the biggest culprit was I/O.  There should really be a Big IO notation, since unless you're developing realtime systems or games, and possibly even then, 99% of your optimizations will be accomplished by reducing I/O.  You can loop through several billion iterations of a loop in the same amount of time it takes an SSD to return a single bit of data from a file read.  I've seen plenty of code that was O(n) that was sped up by moving to an O(n^2) version of the code, simply because it reduced the amount of I/O done within the loop.

Software development tends to focus more on how responsive the application is.  If something is going to take a while, offload it to an asynchronous process and feed status data back to the user.  Don't lock the UI thread.  Don't lock the browser up while the page is loading. To understand how to do those, you have to understand the systems you're working with and how they interact with each other.  If you're dealing with a large number of records, give them some way to split it up so each request isn't ridiculously slow and/or large (pagination?  tagging?  groups? column-based filtering? full-text search?).  That last one has ramifications for the load on your system as well.  In distributed or web-based systems, it's a much bigger optimization to reduce the number of network requests than to make each request as fast as possible.  So you might have to make each request slower in order to return enough data that the requestor doesn't need to contact you again for more.  That's pretty antithetical to the normal methods of profiling and optimization, but it's probably the biggest optimization you can make.  I'm not saying that each request should be wasteful of resources, because you should still try to make it as fast as possible without sacrificing maintainability, but knocking 5ms off a request that then requires them to make an additional request is kind of silly when the network+protocol+routing overhead of a single request is 50ms.

If you pay attention, there will be a point

I think what it boils down to is a fairly obvious dichotomy between theory and practice, science and art.  I'm more concerned with practical knowledge, whereas interviews focus mostly on theoretical knowledge.  I've known plenty of people who were great at CS that ended up being terrible programmers, and plenty of people who were weak on CS but produced great code.  It should be telling that much of the work that comes out of CS research is generally considered to be subpar software.  Don't get me wrong; I'm glad people are doing that work and pushing things forward for all of us.  I just don't want them on my team because I have to maintain that spaghetti mess of a codebase when they move on to the new shiny.

Obviously, all of this is just like, my opinion, man.  As in all things, there's a balance to be had.  Software development is a craft, equal parts art and science, and all too often we ignore the artistry involved.  People who master that aspect of it are equally valuable to those who firmly grasp the deep theory.  Both are rare, and even rarer is someone who masters both.  I'll let you know if I ever meet one.


Friday, October 10, 2014

Impostor Syndrome

I mentioned previously that I failed to publish one of my blog articles for over a year due to impostor syndrome, but then I realized that maybe some people don't know what that is or if I was even being serious.  So, first of all, yes, I was serious, sort of.  I do think I suffer from what's colloquially known as Impostor Syndrome, but not to the extremes that some do.  The basic gist of the problem is that I always worry that people will find out that I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, despite having a fairly successful career as a software developer.  There's more information at Wikipedia if you're curious.  It's the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, in which incompetent people tend to overestimate their own level of competence, which sadly is what most really successful business people have from what I've seen over the years.  We, as a society, tend to reward overconfident incompetence instead of self-doubting excellence.  I've read that it's significantly more common in women than men, but I personally believe it affects far more developers than are willing to admit it, based on behavior I've witnessed over the years.  It could just be that more women are willing to admit to it.  I've decided to share my personal experience with this problem, what I've been able to do to overcome it to a degree, and how it still affects a lot of things in my career, usually for the worse, in the hopes that bringing more attention to the problem will help others who are similarly afflicted.  I'm going out on a major limb here and I hope that it doesn't collapse under my weight.

We've got wee, not so wee, and friggin huge

The sheer enormity of the volume of knowledge in Computer Science and software development is frankly overwhelming.  As the old adage goes, the more I learn, the less I know.  There are new developments constantly coming out, and it's impossible to keep up with them all, especially given my relative lack of formal education which has left me to pick up some of the more fundamental parts of the discipline in a more ad-hoc manner over the years.  I feel like I'm constantly catching up with where I should have been years ago.  It doesn't help that the landscape has changed drastically in that time. What was once considered PHD level material now seems to be considered by some to be basic knowledge.  Object-oriented programming, functional programming, reactive programming, aspect-oriented programming, set theory, graph theory, bayesian statistics, machine learning, AI, computer graphics, big data, distributed systems, operating systems, compilers, interpreters, security, encryption, dynamic typing, static typing, weak typing, strong typing, data structures, search algorithms, consensus algorithms, and on and on and on.  And that doesn't include all the peripheral knowledge like project management, agile methodologies, version control systems, bug tracking software, etc.  It's a lot to know, and it's seemingly more and more all required knowledge based on what you read from the peanut gallery.  And those are just a sampling of the things I either know or know I need to know, and I keep finding new examples all the time.  The backlog on my reading list is huge, and I don't have the time or energy to actually catch up.  It would take years of dedicated full-time effort, and that's without a job or a family to maintain.

This one goes to 11.  It's one louder.

So, that's the first part of the problem.  It's impossible to understand all these topics to a significant depth.  Some people are fine just skating by on the surface, understanding enough to talk about it, but I personally don't feel qualified to talk on a subject until I have really absorbed it.  And that takes time, and with things like programming, a lot of practice.  I'm stuck with an unfortunately limited subset of these topics that I really understand, and a larger subset that I sort of get but couldn't really speak to to any depth.  Some would say I'm lacking in some of the basics, but I also really know some of the not-basics, which makes it really difficult for people to gauge my competence level until they've actually worked with me.  My biggest concern is that I'll have a conversation like the one from Spinal Tap where Nigel keeps insisting that his amp is louder because it has an 11 on the knob, where others only go up to 10.  He knows enough about amps to know that higher numbers are louder, but completely misunderstands what the numbers actually represent and assumes that 11 is just louder.  Some people are content to pretend they understand the technology while spouting off incorrect information to people who don't understand it enough to call BS.  As Mark Twain said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."  I opt to keep quiet, but when I hear people talking with confidence on so many topics, I falsely assume they actually understand what they're talking about and I feel lacking by comparison.  I project my ethics and thought processes on to others who don't necessarily share them.

How does he not get fired?

It doesn't help people with this problem that many developers exhibit a tendency which has been labeled as "feigning surprise" (see Hacker School Rules), in which they pretend to be shocked when someone doesn't know something that they have learned.  This has a severe negative emotional impact on people who already think they are impostors.  It makes them want to speak up less, and just retreat into their safety zone.  I personally think this can be pretty tightly coupled with impostor syndrome, but I can't necessarily prove it, it's just a hunch based on my own experiences.   I think, at least in some cases, that the person feigning surprise is not consciously faking it but is actually surprised that someone else doesn't know something they do.  They feel like they're a fraud, and certainly the other person shouldn't also be a fraud.  It's like a weird combination of nihilism and narcissism that doesn't make any logical sense to others, and it comes across as demeaning and only serves to worsen the problem.

This is an NP hard problem

I think a lot of my opinions on interviewing in my previous post revolve around this problem, honestly.  I tend to clam up in interviews when they hit an area I don't understand extremely well, out of fear that I'll say something extremely stupid on the subject and just cast away all doubt as to my imposterosity.  In reality, often times, they're purposely testing how the subject reacts to a situation in which they don't know the answer. Despite my logically understanding this, my psychological reaction is to flee inward rather than reveal my ignorance, so I look even worse by not working it out with the interviewer.  My whole career is just a house of cards waiting to crash down as soon as someone realizes I really don't understand all of the intricacies of directed acyclic graphs and paxos consensus algorithms. This can come across as incompetence in interview settings, and I've done poorly on a number of interviews and lost jobs because of it.

Nevermind the man behind the curtain

Given how interviews are conducted, I'm amazed every time I get to a new job how much it's basically like the old job.  I've had a couple times where I finally felt like I got in; I was now part of the elite who worked at these places with these ridiculous interviews.  I sure fooled those guys; they're gonna feel pretty silly that they hired me once they realize I'm not a demigod.  Come to find out that my new coworkers were basically of the same competence level as my old ones; some good, some not so good. I imagine it's that way at places like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon, despite all their pretense of hiring only the best of the best.  They still make stupid decisions and release the same crappy, bug-filled software as the rest of us.  They just don't do it in the open, so people romanticize that things must be perfect behind their shroud of secrecy.

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog gone it, people like me

So, what can someone with impostor syndrome do to combat it?  There are a few things I've found that have helped me immensely, but each is a constant battle.  Just being aware that I have this problem, and that it's a known, not-uncommon issue has helped tremendously.  I can objectively look back over my career and realize that I have actually done well at most jobs I've had. When I left one job, my boss told his boss that they were losing their best developer,  and at another job I was kept on after nearly everyone was let go in order to help transition things to the parent company. Even at the places where I felt completely unworthy after the difficult interview, yet somehow managed to land the job, I ended up being well-respected and valued because of my pragmatism, my attention to detail, and my ability to ramp up quickly.  You would think that would be validation enough, but I tend to dismiss those things because those people obviously didn't see how much I was struggling.  When I feel especially fraudulent, I remind myself of those experiences so I can feel more calm and confident, and it helps.

Another thing that has helped immensely is setting aside time to actually research areas where I feel I'm lacking. If I can at least have a cursory knowledge of an area, enough to actually have a decent conversation on the subject, I feel a lot less incompetent.  This has proven the most difficult, because it's often led to going down a rabbit hole of related subjects that I can never possibly learn to the degree I would prefer.  Nevertheless, it's still been a boon, and I feel like I'm in a much better position than I was a few years ago.  I'm working on being less dismissive of my own ideas, as it's turned out that I've had some good ideas over the years that have worked out pretty well, but I still have a tendency to discount my opinions or second guess myself.

Oh, he comes from a broken home.  So... no coffee then?

I guess that's all the advice I have.  There's no miracle cure here, but it is manageable.  Be objective, be logical, and remind yourself that you actually have done a good job from time to time.  Most of all, remember that nearly everyone else is faking it just as much as you are, if not more.  Some people are just better at hiding it than others.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Being a part of something special

In my career, I can think of only one time I've felt like I was a part of something truly special.  At Liquid Web, I was part of small team of developers and engineers that built out Liquid Web's cloud product called Storm on Demand.  It was a pretty amazing accomplishment for a handful of people over a thirteen month period from inception to public release.  Despite being a very niche player in the market, we were only a few months too late to be the 2nd public cloud provider after Amazon.  Unfortunately, during those few months, several other players also got their clouds out, so when we released, it didn't make quite the splash we had hoped.  Don't get me wrong, it was wildly successful, I just think some people had unrealistic expectations.  It was really an amazing accomplishment, and despite the fact that I've since left the company, I still count it as the best experience of my career thus far.

So, I think I'm about to have my second such experience.  At Rackspace, we've formed a Data Services "practice area" (practice as in law practice, not basketball practice, it took me a while).  A year or two ago, we acquired a startup called ObjectRocket that specializes in providing MongoDB as a service.  Their focus is on providing the best MongoDB experience out there and taking all of the headaches of administrating a MongoDB installation away from the developer so they can just focus on the code.  So now, ObjectRocket, the CloudDatabases teams, and CloudBigData team (I'm on this one) are joining forces to form this group.  There's a ton of work to do to get where we need to be, but it's exciting to be a part of, and even if we only accomplish half of what it has set out to do, it should be huge.

It's also possible that this ends up being a giant disaster and implodes.  Given my conversations with the leadership so far, and based on their personalities and management style, I don't feel like this is a big concern.  We've got the resources of Rackspace behind us, and we have the right type of pragmatism and excitement and technical know-how to make this succeed.

If this sounds like something you'd like to be a part of, please contact me.  We need your help.  I think this is a fantastic opportunity, and I'd love to see some of my friends and former coworkers (those aren't mutually exclusive sets) be a part of it.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Modern code review practices

I might just be curmudgeonly, but I'm about to the point where I won't even bother contributing to a project that doesn't use the Github pull-request model for code contributions.  There's so much pomp and circumstance with some projects, when they should be doing everything they can to welcome contributions.  Other similar systems like Bitbucket are fine, although Bitbucket's code review UI needs some help.  I've tried a lot of other systems over the years, and none of them match the simplicity and joy of Github.

The 90s called and want their code contribution practices back

I've recently begun trying to contribute to Ambari.  Ambari's contribution instructions read like a Microwave Oven's operator manual.  The process is so arcane that I'm surprised that anyone contributes.  You have to sign up for two services, JIRA and Review Board, and then you submit a patch to the JIRA ticket, as well as create a Review Board review with the same patch, and the same information as in the ticket, then link it back to the JIRA ticket and link the JIRA ticket to the review.  Here, read it yourself: Ambari's How To Contribute Page  I don't know if the Apache Foundation dictates this broken process or if the projects just take it on themselves to make the process horrible, but either way, someone needs to be informed that the 90s called and want their code contribution practices back.  Some of you might be saying, "what's the big deal?  Submitting patch files to two places and manually inviting people to review your code when you don't know who should review your code, then manually linking the review back to the ticket, and then enlisting yet another person to actually commit the code on your behalf isn't that bad" (if you're saying this, please punch yourself in the face and save me the trouble).  But there's also another catch that might be a little less obvious: attribution.  If you submit a patch, and then someone else actually commits the patch for you, the git log attributes the patch to the person who committed it, not you.  You may not realize this, but people like receiving credit for their work, even in Open Source.  Some people will simply refuse to contribute if they don't get credit, and frankly that's as it should be.  Can you imagine an actor or a writer doing work and then letting someone else put their name on it?  I can't.  Ambari puts your name on a contributors page, so it's not like there's no attribution, but that's not the same as having it show up on github, which is commonly used as a portfolio these days.

Barriers, barriers everywhere, and not a drop to drink

Openstack's contribution model isn't as terrible as Ambari.  It at least gets attribution right.  Openstack uses a system called Gerrit for code reviews.  You simply have to sign a CLA, sign up for Launchpad, download a magical tool called git-review (it handles all the arcane Gerrit shenanigans for you), and then run git-review on your committed local branch.  Then Gerrit takes it from there.  More info here: OpenStack's How To Contribute page You'll also need to read all of the coding standards, and all the information about how to format your commit messages, and oh yeah, make sure you know everything that's talked about on the mailing list because if you don't conform, your code will be rejected.  You'll likely not pass your code review and then have to re-submit the same branch for review (your new friend it git commit --amend).  Assuming you actually make it through the gauntlet of feedback and pass all the automated tests, which cover things like Openstack's extremely limiting and pedantic coding standards, then Gerrit will automatically merge it for you and push it up to Github.  So, it's usable, even if a bit overblown.  The biggest problem is that the process takes forever.  Even working with the same developer on an Openstack project and another project that's just on Github, it's amazing how much faster progress is made on the Github-based project.  I understand the need for verification of new code before it's released, but this is just a bit much.  Github lets you integrate with other systems to verify pull requests, and it works extremely well and doesn't require a ton of hoop-jumping from the developers.

I'll quit while I'm ahead

I really think it's antithetical to the spirit of Open Source to make it difficult to contribute to your project.  Github gets it right.  You fork my code, write your own code, then submit a pull request.  All the feedback and code is in the same interface, you can update your pull request based on feedback, and when it's good to go, the committer can merge it in.  Done.  If you don't want to use their issue tracker, you can integrate it with most popular issue trackers and have it automatically update tickets for you.  Whatever you do, don't make the contributor have to do this manually.

Full disclosure: I don't work for Github and I'm not a paid shill.  I just really think they nailed this process and there's a good reason they're becoming a de-facto standard.  I wish other projects would catch on.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Even the best software sucks

I rant a lot about user experience.  If you know me, you've probably heard me ramble on about it.  And when I talk about user experience, I don't just mean a slick UI.  There are a lot of aspects to user experience, like performance, responsiveness, obviousness, etc.  I'm not going to go into all of that here, as this is a rant about traveling.

I recently embarked upon a cross-country drive with my family to attend my wife's family reunion.  It was a good trip overall, except for one thing.  Google Maps!  Oh, how I have learned to hate thee.  Now, don't get me wrong, I love Google Maps.  It's saved my bacon on more than one occasion.  There have been times where it has wrong information and has led me astray, but that's understandable.  It's a difficult task to keep that much map data up-to-date and accurate with how frequently things change in our world.  What happened to me was far more annoying.  I use the built-in turn-by-turn navigation feature of Google Maps when traveling by car, and it's almost always been great.  However, a recent update has made it extremely unstable.  It crashes every hour or two.  No notification, it just silently exits and my phone eventually goes to sleep if I don't notice in time.  This wouldn't be a huge deal, except for two factors that the developers seem to be unaware of:


  1. Google Maps actually does crash.
  2. There are areas of the country that have unreliable or nonexistent cellular data signals. 


You would think this would be common knowledge, but I guess over in California, they have miles and miles of reliable data signals, and they never, ever leave their little bubble.  There's no other explanation for a few of the behaviors of Google Maps.  Let's go into them:

Google, Google, where art thou, Google?

After restarting from a crash, Google Maps forgets that you were mid-navigation.  I can understand that it doesn't want to just assume you didn't exit on purpose.  That's fine. But it could pretty easily prompt you.  "I see you were in the middle of a trip.  Resume?"  This would have saved me from so much pain that I might have forgiven the fact that the app crashed approximately 40 times on my trip.  This would depend upon Google Maps actually storing ANY trip data on the phone itself, which apparently it does not or else you wouldn't have to do the following.

Houston, I'm broadcasting in the blind.  Is anybody out there?

To restore your trip, you have two options.

  1. Type in the destination again.  Wait until it finds it.  Click on the navigate link.  Pick the route.  Click navigate again.  Wait for it to get the GPS sorted out.  Go.
  2. Click in the search box.  Wait for the recent history to appear.  Click on the navigate link, etc, as above.
So option 2 would be acceptable, if a bit tedious, if Google Maps actually kept your recent history on your device.  Alas, no, it does not.  It has to go out to the internet and get your history so you can start your trip again. Did it never occur to the developers to follow basic mobile app development guidelines and assume that the data connection is unreliable?  I can understand that Google has to spy on everything you ever do and wants to store that data online, but there's absolutely no reason it doesn't also keep a local copy that it just asynchronously updates when the internet reappears.  No data connection?  We got you covered.  But, no, that isn't how they do it.  There's nothing quite so infuriating as having the map die a few miles before a turn in the middle of nowhere and you furiously are trying to get it going again before you miss your turn, only to see a "no connection" error when trying to start the trip again.  Why isn't the trip already downloaded?  Don't you know what local storage is for?  It got to the point where my wife just loaded the trip in Waze on her phone as a backup, and while having the same directions parroted to me from two devices within seconds of each other was kind of amusing at first, it was also a sad statement about how badly Google Maps was performing for this trip.

To err is program

To me, this is just a basic feature of a navigation program that should have been solved years ago.  I'm not even getting into nice-to-have features like displaying speed limits on the map.  Seriously, why isn't that a thing?  You already have the data or you wouldn't be able to calculate how long the trip takes.  So, instead of asking for the bare minimum of caching the trip after you search for it, and not requiring an internet connection to see your recent searches, I'm going to one-up that and say what Google Maps really should provide: the ability to pre-cache an entire trip from your cushy, safe, wifi connection at home that never needs to touch the internet again the entire trip. It should download the entire route and all maps within a reasonable distance of the trip (say, 1 mile on both sides of the road, to cover pit stops and small detours). I've got gigabytes of free space just begging to be used for this. Bring it on, Google.  Based on the difficulty of your interviews, even your HR interns should be capable of providing these features.  They aren't that difficult to program.  Now, where's that bug tracker...