While I understand the convenience of
I would consider pushing ALL DMBS support to extensions. This may make it easier for installations to create their own rules around whatever dbms they use and also make it easier to support major versions of DBMS product as separateextensions.
As I am wrapping up 3.3.x changes and looking forward to what changes and features people are asking for and what I would like improved, I am thinking it is time to look at larger changes around a Liquibase 4.0 release.
My most-likely overly-ambitious goal for Liquibase 4.0 is to do a major housecleaning of the Liquibase codebase to simplify it while increasing testability and test coverage. There have been changes in scope and requirements over the last 7 years and the codebase is getting a bit over-complex and haphazard. This makes it harder for me to maintain and a barrier to entry for contributors.Previously I thought about trying to break this into a few smaller blocks/themes and focus on one for 3.4, one for 3.5, etc. until they are done and have 4.0 be just the final cleanup “no more changes” release. After doing some work with the testing and the snapshot logic, however, I think they all bleed into each other enough to make it much easier to do a single major release that just breaks everything.
The jump to 4.0 will signify compatibility-breaking API changes, but there should be no changes to the changelog format: 4.0 should be a drop-in replacement for anyone just using a changelog and not writing extensions etc.
The major themes/changes I’m looking to make are:
Improvement of how state is managed and high-level functions are called
Currently there is the liquibase.Liquibase façade object that wraps many common functions with method parameters, a variety of “configuration” objects (such as DiffOutputControl), and a heavy use of singletons. Ant/maven/command line etc. call out to the Liquibase façade as best they can.
The problems with this setup include:
ant/maven/command line/etc. before calling the façade objects
each other
does not happen to be on the method parameters passed along
sometimes need
Planned changes:
including validation and setup
through command line, maven, etc.
is created and passed along to sub-methods.
visible to methods further down the call chain
include it in every method signature, but unsure on a good
implementation yet
Improved Testing/Testability
Liquibase currently doesn’t have a great way to handle testing of the interaction with the database. Traditionally, I’ve had the liquibase-integration-tests module which mainly uses a set of changeSets with example changes and scenarios and preconditions to test that they ran successfully.
Problems with this setup include:
normally run the tests to validate their changes
Beyond the database interaction tests, there is some unit test coverage but not enough
Planned changes:
that
each test creates a simple text description of the interaction (such
as the SQL string to execute) and a way to validate the test passed.
Previous test run text descriptions and the results are stored in a
markdown-formatted file. On each test run, the text description of
the code is compared to the last run and if they are the same (most
of the time) they are just marked as passed. If they are different,
the validation code is used to make sure the new version is still
correct and then the markdown file is updated. If the validation
fails, the test fails. If the validation cannot run (database is unavailable) the markdown file is updated but marked as “not validated”
framework, allow most integration tests to run in unit-test speed,
allow contributors to know when they have potentially broken
things even if they don’t have the database to test against, and
provide a way for me to see how the interactions have changed from
within the pull request system
with standard unit test and “VerifiedTest”
Use more 3rd party libraries
In the past, I’ve tried to avoid the use of 3rd party libraries in order to avoid jar-hell for people using Liquibase. I think there are few places where there have been enough convergence on a “standard” and/or isolated-enough use cases that I should introduce some 3rd party libraries in order to simplify my codebase. In particular:
version where jar-hell doesn’t really matter since it’s more of a
packaged application
cause issues for users with different versions or technologies)
and/or YAML/JSON
Improve database snapshot functionality
Database Snapshot support was never really central to Liquibase, but it has become more and more used within Liquibase. The current implementation is overly complex and the way it abstracts the logic for extension doesn’t really fit with how extension is happening in real life leading to performance issues and excessive code writing. Furthermore, testing is slow and difficult to impossible.
Planned changes:
(schema, table, etc.) and then recursively finding related objects
to a process where we first just fetch all objects in the database
and then connect up those objects in memory if needed. The base
object to snapshot (a schema, a table, a column, etc.) is still
passed to each of the fetch methods which can limit what is read
from the database if it so chooses, but it will be a much less
convoluted process
base classes do not make JDBC
or even RDBMS assumptions. The
snapshot process should be able to
handle non-traditional
“databases” such as hibernate mappings,
changelog files, mongodb
and other nosql database, etc. Ideally it
would even be able to
snapshot non-databases such as server
configurations although
that is less important.
to support data diff
example, don’t include tables that match the name “ADM_.*”
only diff the data in “.*_lookup” tables and only include
tablespace information for “.*_lob” tables
Improve Change and SQL Generation logic
Currently we have Change classes which represent what can be in a changeLog file. These generate one or more Statement objects which are a lower-level logical database change. The Statement objects are then fed to SqlGenerator objects which create the actual SQL based on the Statement and the Database.
Planned changes:
purpose Action class. The current Change and Statement objects are
mainly duplicates of each other and there doesn’t really need to be
a distinction.
currently outside the scope of the Change/Statement objects such
as the metadata lookup. Bringing the metadata lookup into the same “Action” framework will allow us to have just one code path for all “I want to do X against this database” logic
Improve Cross-database Logic
Both update and snapshot logic currently have issues with cross-database functionality.
Data types is the major problem:
On update, sometimes people want to be able to specify a simple type like “text” and have that mean “clob” on one database and “nvarchar(max)” on another. Other times, people want “text” to mean “clob” on one database but “text” (not nvarchar(max)) on another. Or “int” should be the database default “int” on all but oracle where it should be number(23). Then there are boolean types where some databases don’t support Boolean so you need to use “bit” but you also sometimes need to specify a actual “bit” type which isn’t used as a boolean and so should be tinyint on the db that supports Boolean but not bit.
On snapshot, if you are comparing a mssql and a mysql database should you mark the columns as different if they data types are int vs. integer? What about nvarchar(10) vs varchar(10) when one doesn’t support nvarchar? Bit vs. Boolean? Text vs. nvarchar(max)? Text. Vs. Text (when mssql’s nvarchar(max) is more like mysql text?)
On generateChangeLog, do you generate generic types or database-specific types?
Case handling is the other major problem:
How should differences in case be handled in comparisons? When should case sensitivity be preserved and when should it not matter?
There are other issues too:
difference to fix since mysql auto-generates the index?
suppport sequences, should that be an error? Or expected to fail and skipped?
General Code Improvements
validation and checksum
handling files correctly.
non-java uses of the code. In particular I was hoping to be able to
use ikvm to re-compile most of the Liquibase logic for .Net and just
plug in particular classes to make it better integrate (.net-native
connections, xml parsers, etc.) There has never been any traction on
this and I think it should be pulled out to simplify things
prepared statements, not simple statements. Liquibase has tried to
avoid prepared statements and so places where they are needed are
badly wedged in.
string replacement of the SQL, but if/when the generated SQL logic
changes that can transparently break previously working modifySql.
Need a way to make this safer
if what we have is good or not
level logging but people often want SQL logged but no other debug
info and/or to log SQL to a separate location. Ensure all SQL is
logged and handled separately
the same point and doesn’t always track all the changes in a tag
well. Probably need a separate DATABASECHANGELOGTAG table
logic”, connection handling, and more. Some logic should be split
out, other dialect logic scattered throughout the code should be
brought into the Database class
ensure the APIs cover what is needed
multiple schemas but it is not consistently used and supported.
mssql, db2
New Features
the changeSet
other *Reference commands
that perform the same logic as the
normal version (update, rollback, etc) but against the
“reference” database.
and new features
Infrastructure Improvements:
Vet all classes with extensions and subclassing in mind
What are your thoughts on the 4.0 feature list? Anything you think
should be added or removed?
Nathan
Pushing everything to an extension is an option. My concern with that is that it adds one more step/dependency for people and therefore a chance for mistake. I run into issues with the few databases that have been pushed off into extensions already where they forget they need the extension. It is also easy to get confusion with version management between the database extensions and the core library.
However, if the core library contains support for nothing, it makes for an easier and helpful error message if there are no Database implementations found.
Also, there is probably confusion already since there is built in support for oracle, mssql and postgres but there are also extensions for them. The built-in support has support for the “standard” liquibase features and the extensions can add extra features such as a command, materialized view support, etc.
Maybe the best approach would be to split out the core databases into separate modules in the main liquibase codebase. So there would be liquibase-core, liquibase-maven, etc. like there is now but then add liquibase-oracle, liquibase-mysql, liquibase-db2, liquibase-mssql and liquibase-pgsql. The current “extension” code could go in those. Since it’s the same codebase, each new liquibase version would contain new builds for the standard database extensions and versions would stay in sync.
That will help force there to be no database-specific code in any of the rest of liquibase, for better or worse. There are time when it is nice to say “use this sql for mysql and oracle” vs. having to duplicate the different behavior in both extensions, but there are sometimes other options like flags or some duplication can be nice to not accidentally break other databases.
Nathan
There was apparently some Zoho issues which led people to reply directly to me rather than post to the forum. Hopefully it’s cleaned up. I’m going to summarize some and add more thoughts here rather than duplicating it to everyone.
All Database Implementations As Plugins
The idea of pushing all database implementations to plugins seemed well received and I agree makes sense. That is something we will do for 4.0. We’ll want to have an easily extendable abstract base in liquibase-core and probably UnknownDatabase but the rest will go to sub-modules.
One thing that would help would be sort of an “SDK Test Suite” that can be ran against any database extension to make sure it generally works and also follows whatever conventions make sense. We should develop this suite along with 4.0.
3rd Party Libraries
Multiple Connections
Several people liked this feature. Definitely something to ensure is supported.
Java 6 Support: Why Still?
I try to ensure Liquibase can run in as many places as possible. That is why I’ve kept dependencies to a minimum and also build off old Java versions. However, at some point it is time to move on.
I had tried to look for stats on Java versions being used in and couldn’t find anything great. After some digging it semed like there was maybe still 20-30% of projects still running Java 6 which seemed enough of an install base to continue supporting it. If someone has better statistics, let me know though.
“Verified Test” Framework
I just spun the verified test framework off as a separate project (http://testmd.org) so it can grow independently and/or make dependency management cleaner in Liquibase. Take a look and let me know what you think.
Scope Objects
“Are they Necessary?” “Are they Like ServletRequest?” “Consider making them TreadLocal” “Just use @Inject”
I’m still working through how to best handle the Scope object. If we use Guice, that may remove a lot (all?) of the need for it. But perhaps not as well. They do sort of behave like ServletRequest, especially its “get|setAttributes” methods.
What I want to do with Scope is to have a way for new configuration and other state objects to be managed without impacting the existing code. This is partly to keep backwards compatibility but also because we want extensions to be able to define new attributes that liquibase-core does not know about and they can simply flow though everything.
For example, liquibase-core may define a “connection” object which is normally used for reading/writing to the database but someone may want to attach a new “backupConnection” to the scope when they start their command and then in one of their extension Change classes they can use that connection to backup data before dropping a table.
@Inject may work for that, but I think a more contained Scope object would work better.
Short-Term Roadmap
I think the first steps toward 4.0 are:
Thoughts? (Assuming Zoho lets you post 
)
Nathan
I looked into Guice a bit and posted my thoughts here: http://forum.liquibase.org/#Topic/49382000001230003
Short version: thinking Guice isn’t going to be helpful enough to go with.
Nathan
