(yay, mailing lists!) At first glance, what is the leading "gossip:" buying you over a normally parsable URI? Might it be better to embed that in the path? My thinking is that is might also make it easier to deploy this into existing web containers/appservers as well as allow you to deploy some normal informational webserver alongside the gossip "service" (e.g. /gossip is the service, while / is some metrics/monitoring service).
- Josh On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Edward Capriolo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > There are two connection related items in the proposal ( > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GossipProposal) > > - Explore HTTP transport as an alternative to UDP > - Secure communications > - Transport security using a pre-shared key > - Public Key Infrastructure > > Currently the message sent over the wire sends two connection related > parameters host and port. Each time a message is send a UDP connection is > established. Also one interesting bit is that the messages do not have an > ACK, the active gossip thread picks a partner and sends a message. > > My thinking is we would like a few things > 1) a UDP service that keeps connections alive or TCP? > 2) an http service (Ie run gossip as a tomcat/jetty webapp) > 3) Encryption > > I think an interesting way to go about this would be URI's that will give > us more flexibility than (host, port) > > gossip:udp://host:port > gossip:tcp://host:port > gossip:http://host:port > > I believe now that protocols like http(S) are out of favor vs start TLS. > > That could be something like > > gossip:http://host:port;tls=true
