On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:46 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 > Like certificates? > - 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? > I wouldn't recommend coming up with a guaranteed delivery UDP service (part of what TCP is). But I think the idea of a UDP endpoint for receiving updates is great. > 2) an http service (Ie run gossip as a tomcat/jetty webapp) > I would caution against prescribing tomcat/jetty/spring-boot/etc for the transport. I think ppl will want to be able to take apache-gossip and embed them in their own applications that may depend on frameworks. It may be better to do what over projects to and have modules, e.g.: gossip-core, gossip-tomcat, gossip-spring-boot, gossip-thrift (yeah, I know), etc. > 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 > I'm fine with this. It's semantics at this point. Gary.
