Right, I get that. I was more pointing out why not just "udp://" instead of "gossip:udp://". It looks like java.net.URI can still parse it, just doesn't quite parse as I'd expect :).
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Capriolo <[email protected]> wrote: > "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 >>
