do you mean microservice instance provide RESTful api and a standalone instance to provide UI?
seems like another governance entry...... bismy <bi...@qq.com> 于2019年3月6日周三 下午4:13写道： > I have an general idea to do this: > > > 1. We do not need to create a new port for this feature, and share the > microservice port. It has same security constraints like REST api. > 2. We can provide both ui and REST api for this feature. Provided we need > to easily access the ui from edge service(Is this possible to do it > easily?). > 3. We can start a new project, e.g. servicecomb-admin (or a module like in > edge service do), users start this admin service along with microservices. > So they can access admin service easily, do not need to care much about > security constraints like service center console. > > > > > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------ > 发件人: "willem.jiang"<willem.ji...@gmail.com>; > 发送时间: 2019年3月5日(星期二) 下午2:12 > 收件人: "dev"<dev@servicecomb.apache.org>; > > 主题: Re: [discuss][java-chassis] new feature for inspect internal statusof > a microservice instance > > > > I think we can start from the instance troubleshooting solution first, > then we can consider to let management console redirect the request to > the certain instance. > > Willem Jiang > > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:54 AM wjm wjm <zzz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > @yaohai...@huawei.com <yaohai...@huawei.com> agree to you. > > but > > 1.graphical user interface is not a problem, network is a problem > > browser maybe can not connect to the instance directly > > 2.we must provide these features by governance console, the problem is if > > we will provide it by instance also? > > when provide by governance console, it's more powerful than by instance > > because instance can only have self information, but governance can > show > > related instance's information. > > > > yhs0092 <yhs0...@163.com> 于2019年3月5日周二 上午11:23写道： > > > > > Here is just my personal consideration. It's indeed a complex problem > when > > > get involved in security issues. > > > > > > > > > Once we decide this function is only provided directly by the service > > > instances, users can only log into the micro-service clusters to get > access > > > to these informations. In such case we can assume that the security > should > > > be guaranteed by users themselves. > > > There are still several problems: > > > 1. Usually there are all Linux OS servers in a cluster, with no > graphical > > > user interface. It may be hard to find a browser to read the > informations. > > > 2. If the instances enable Mutual TLS authentication, it may be > difficult > > > to get access to the informations directly. Or we can provide an > isolated > > > port for this feature, but it makes us further away from our security > goal. > > > > > > > > > If we provide a separate console service, maybe we can solve these > > > problem. The console can be split into web page and backend service. > The > > > backend service can be deployed into the service cluster. It can be > treated > > > as a common micro-service, which means the security options of it can > keep > > > the same as other services. The web pages, if they are static page with > > > html+js, can be deployed in the edge service. If users are concerned > about > > > the security issues, they can add authorization by themselves. > > > I think this solution is flexible, but complex for many users. > > > > > > > > > On conclusion, I guess if this feature is provided by service instances > > > directly, it is less complex for us to implement it. While it may be > not so > > > practical in production environment. If this feature is provided by > another > > > console service, it's more complex, but there are more chances to > apply it > > > into a production environment. > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > Yao Haishi > > > yhs0...@163.com > > > > > > > > > On 3/5/2019 10:37，wjm wjm<zzz...@gmail.com> wrote： > > > this feature should be for both development and production > environment, so > > > must conside security problem. > > > currently i'm not sure what's the best way to control it. > > > > > > yhs0092 <yhs0...@163.com> 于2019年3月5日周二 上午10:28写道： > > > > > > That's a great idea! > > > What is the positioning of this feature? If it's designed for > development > > > environment trouble-shooting, I guess it's okay the web pages are > provided > > > by the micro-service instances directly. But if this feature is > expected to > > > work in production environment, which may contains massive > micro-service > > > instances, maybe it's better that service instances provide RESTful > > > interfaces, and users get access to these informations via the console > > > service. > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > Yao Haishi > > > yhs0...@163.com > > > > > > > > > On 3/5/2019 09:52，wjm wjm<zzz...@gmail.com> wrote： > > > @zhang_lei > > > > > > ServiceComb can run with spring boot, but will not depend on spring > boot. > > > > > > > > > wjm wjm <zzz...@gmail.com> 于2019年3月5日周二 上午9:49写道： > > > > > > href of gif: > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12961084/swaggerAndDocument.gif > > > and more question: > > > how to define the security of the new feature > > > should open a new port for the feature? > > > > > > > > > wjm wjm <zzz...@gmail.com> 于2019年3月5日周二 上午9:20写道： > > > > > > currently it's difficult to collect internal status of a microservice > > > instance when some problem happened. > > > eg: > > > routing depend on cached instances, discovery tree, strategy of > > > governances, and so on > > > when we resolving routing related problem, we can only guess the status > > > of all related modules. > > > > > > > > > so we should provide a way to inspect the internal status of a > > > microservice instance at runtime, maybe include: > > > discovery tree > > > isolation > > > eventbus > > > view schemas as swagger or html/pdf...... > > > ...... > > > maybe like the gif: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my question: > > > provide these informations include related html/js/css by instance > > > directly, or only by governance console > > > if provide by both instance and governance console, that will cause > > > duplicate development > > > > > > if provide by instance > > > what's the name of the module? "inspector"? > > > swagger to html depend on "asciidoctor", which depend on jruby, it's > very > > > heavy. > > > in my demo, resource of swagger and asciidoctor all load from cdn, but > for > > > some customer's environment, maybe can not connect to internet. > > > any other idea? > > >
