Re: Cloud Foundry Java Client V2

Guillaume Berche

Thanks Ben for sharing details of this important effort with the community.

In the light of the ongoing implementation for the v2 cf-java-client
implementation, does the Java experience team feels that of the 300+
documented API endpoints, there is room for a consistent, systematic
approach for the low level API that matches these low-level CC API
endpoints ?

Does the team feel that this low level API could be automatically generated
from a formal REST API specification ?

Could some of the effort in 100% Java coverage could be shifted in
maintaining a formal REST API specification, from which the Java low-level
client could be generated automatically, similar to what google is
systematically doing when providing client libraries [1], in multiple
languages including java [2], php, JS, Node.Js, Go, ruby, .Net for all of
google REST APIs, using automatic client code generation [3].

The question of a formal CC API REST API spec was brought to the CAPI team
in the context of the v3 CC API at [4], and I'd like to know if the teams
generating the clients feel there is room for automation, and mutualization
of effort among programming languages (in particular Java, go, Js) for the
v3 version, building on learnings and experience from existing CC API

Thanks in advance,



On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Ben Hale <bhale(a)> wrote:

As many of you are aware, the Cloud Foundry Java Client has been a bit
neglected lately. There are various reasons for this, but today I’m
pleased to announce that we’ve begun a V2 effort and that progress is swift.

We on the Cloud Foundry Java Experience team have been aware for some time
that the current implementation of the Java Client is less than ideal.
Among the most common complaints were the lack of separation between
interface and implementation, the subpar network performance, and the
requirement that users understand how to orchestrate common concepts like
`push` on their own. (For a more in-depth treatment of issues we
identified, please see the stellar work done by Scott Fredrick[1].) V2
aims to address all of these issues with a ground-up redesign of the client.

To address the issue of a lack of separation between interface and
implementation, we’ve broken out the API into a project containing no
implementation. This project (`cloudfoundry-client`) consists of a
collection of interfaces and immutable datatypes. There is only a single
dependency, and it isn’t Spring! The intent here was to create an API that
could be implemented with multiple strategies, but requiring the minimal
amount of code for each of those implementations. The API itself is now
reactive (the single dependency is on Reactive Streams, the precursor to
reactive support in Java 9) which we believe will more closely align with
the trends towards non-blocking network communication. We will be
providing a single implementation of this API, based on Spring
(`cloudfoundry-client-spring`) but welcome additional implementations. We
believe we’ve created a good environment for alternatives and would be
happy to hear suggestions on how to improve if that turns out not to be the

In V1, the coverage of the APIs[2] was incomplete (about half, if I had to
guess). Our commitment is to deliver a complete API and implementation in
V2, including all 300+ documented APIs. We’ve observed that this API might
not actually be the right level of abstraction for many users though.
Knowing that you need to create an application, create a package, stage a
droplet, create and start a process, etc. for `push` is quite a burden on
many users of the project. So, we’re also providing a
`cloudfoundry-operations` project that builds on the `cloudfoundry-client`
API but instead of mapping onto the low-level REST API, we’re going to map
roughly onto the `cf` CLI API. We suspect that nearly all users will want
to `cloudFoundryOperations.push()` instead of the low-level alternative, so
both choices are useful. This API and implementation will only depend on
`cloudfoundry-client` allowing any implementation of that API to be used.
Finally, we’ll be bringing the build-system plugins up to date with the
systems that they are built for and ensuring that they cover a breadth of
useful functionality at build time.

This leaves the question about what will happen to V1. We have a
commitment to fixing up the bugs that have been identified in the
code-base, but we’re not going to be doing any work that involves adding
APIs. We feel that users who need those APIs are better served moving to
V2. I’ll be feeding open issues from the backlog into the V2 stream of
work to ensure that we aren’t seeing any resource starvation and you can
expect future releases out of the `1.x` branch.

I hope that this comes as welcome news to the community and look forward
to the feedback. I highly encourage users to keep an eye Pivotal
Tracker[3] to see our progress and submit requests through GitHub[4].

-Ben Hale
Cloud Foundry Java Experience


Join to automatically receive all group messages.