[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3187?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13103152#comment-13103152
]
Brandon Williams commented on CASSANDRA-3187:
---------------------------------------------
bq. The question in my mind is, do we want to "unbreak" 0.8.4/0.8.5, and make
"endpoints" the same as it was in earlier versions (i.e. listen_address) and
add a new field for rpc_address?
If I could do it all over again, I wouldn't have put CASSANDRA-1777 in 0.8, but
I think at this point changing it back in a minor is bad and will end up
causing a lot of confusion.
> Return both listen_address and rpc_address through describe_ring
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-3187
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3187
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: 1.0.0
> Reporter: Nick Bailey
> Assignee: Nick Bailey
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.8.6, 1.0.0
>
> Attachments:
> 0001-0.8-Return-both-rpc-address-and-listen-address-with-the-.patch,
> 0001-1.0-Return-both-rpc-address-and-listen-address-with-the-.patch
>
>
> CASSANDRA-1777 changed describe_ring to return the rpc address associated
> with a node instead of the listen_address. This allows using different
> interfaces for listen_address and rpc_address, but breaks when rpc_address is
> set to something like 0.0.0.0.
> I think the describe_ring should just return both interfaces. We can add an
> optional field to the TokenRange struct that is 'listen_endpoints' or
> something similar and populate that with the listen addresses of nodes.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
