Jetty itself is configured by Jetty XML provided in jettyPath property. Other properties are used by RestProcessor and they are actually common for both protocols. So there are protocol specific properties for HTTP and TCP and common properties that do not depend on protocol. I believe that's the reason why we have this big configuration class for the whole REST functionality. We can't just split it in two classes.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > From my point of view, what mostly confuses here is the name of the > class. > > I think it should be RestServerConfiguration, for example. Right now it's > > not obvious what this class actually configures. > > > > Also I just realized that if we remove TCP-based REST server, we will > > remove Memcached support. Are we OK with that? > > > I certainly do not want to remove memcached support, but we should call it > MemcachedConfiguration then and isolate Memcached properties there. > > > > If yes, we will need only > > these properties (they are used by HTTP REST): > > > > - jettyPath > > - restSecretKey > > - restPortRange > > - restAccessibleFolders > > - restExecSvc > > - restSvcShutdown > > - clientMsgInterceptor > > > > Isn't REST HTTP support handled via Jetty? In that case, are these Jetty > configuration properties? Maybe we should call it JettyConfiguration? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I want to start discussion about client configuration settings in > Ignite. > > > From what I have seen, it looks like we already have client-based > > discovery > > > and CLIENT_ONLY cache mode for thick clients. > > > > > > In my view, we should not need the old thin-client configuration at > all, > > as > > > it supports only a limited subset of the API. If all agree, then > > > ClientConnectionConfiguration class should be removed. However, I am > > > seeing Jetty configuration properties there which we may still need to > > > support HTTP REST requests: > > > > > > getRestJettyPath() > > > getRestSecretKey() > > > > > > Can someone who developed this piece provide some guidance on how to > > > property configure HTTP REST without keeping the whole > > > ClientConnectionConfiguration behemoth class? > > > > > > D > > > > > >
