Thanks for the feedback Larry. I agree that it makes sense to let use cases drive the amount of configurability needed. Like you have spotted in the test case in the patch I do have it in at the service definition level.
On 9/2/15, 7:34 AM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: >This strategy sounds great to me. >Abstracting the config object makes sense as well - even if just making it >a factoryContext type of thing would be better. > >I'm not sure that we need gateway level configurability though a default >in >the service definition would be good. >Perhaps, the ability to override it in the topology would help testing but >I would let that decision be made based on need. >Considering that we haven't needed it yet, maybe we won't. > >Over course, you do have a MockHttpClientFactory in the patch being used >but I see that it is used at the service definition level. > >On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Sumit Gupta <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> All, >> >> I am seeking input/feedback for the work that is going into KNOX-593. >> There is an initial patch uploaded and as can probably be gleaned fairly >> quickly, the idea is to move code out from Dispatch implementations and >> leverage apache common's HttpClient functionality as much as possible. >> Besides the code maintenance win, this hopefully reduces the need to >>create >> custom dispatches if we allow for HttpClient's to be pluggable. >> >> Therefore while undertaking this effort, there is an attempt to make the >> HttpClient creation pluggable as well. Hence the new interface for >> HttpClientFactory. Right now the create method on factory interface is >> being passed the entire FilterConfig object. This felt odd to me from an >> interface cleanliness standpoint but it was my initial stab at the >> interface simply because it contained the information that the factory >> would likely need. I think I would like to make a more appropriate >>config >> object for this. >> >> The only pluggability mechanism in the patch is that of adding the http >> client factory class name to the dispatch config in the service >>definition. >> The question becomes, do we need an overall setting in gateway-site? Do >>we >> need overrides at the topology level? >> >> For example, the dispatch config in a service definition could look like >> this: >> >> <dispatch >> http-client-factory="org.apache.hadoop.gateway.MockHttpClientFactory"/> >> >> Thanks in advance for the feedback. >> Sumit. >>
