"At first glance, what is the leading "gossip:" buying you over a normally parsable URI?" First not everything will be http so:
My thinking is: firstpart:secondpart://host:port/?params gossip:udp://host -> cluster using the current UDP protocol gossip:tcp://host -> cluster using tcp protocol gossip:http://host -> cluster using http over tcp Basically clusters would ONLY speak one protocol, and the parts of a URI are a build in "configuration" system. Otherwise we need to have a separate parameter that must be part of the gossip messages for all the options. On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > (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 >
