I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GOSSIP-2. I am creating the tickets in scrum style. I do not want anyone to think that this means the issue is locked for discussion once it lands in Jira, because we still charge course at any time. @Josh as to your point, I typically call this 'guy who does the work choice' . During the coding the developer will be closer to the problem and make the call that makes the most sense. I think we should only use whatever RFC guidance is out there. 'udp' is a lower level protocol than http, but I would be ok with either.
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> >
