The SIP passed the voting phase. Thanks for all for the feedback and insights. Looking forward to your collaboration and reviews as we implement this.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:42 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's fine if we don't provide any ability for runtime modification of > roles at this time but I'm leery of precluding it in the future. > > In future, the necessity for such a facility can dictate our course of > action. We cannot lay down rules cast in stone for functionality that we > can't foresee yet. > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:40 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Jan, I added both those points to the SIP document in the Notes >> section. >> >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 7:18 PM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 18. nov. 2021 kl. 01:43 skrev Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> >>> 2) Roles will not be checked by loading config from disk or caching disk >>> config in memory. (zk ONLY source of truth) >>> >>> >>> It sounds a bit backward for a local node to first parse >>> solr.node.roles, determine its local set of roles, then publish them to >>> Zookeeper, and then read back its own roles from ZK. >>> Code that only needs to determine "Do I have the XXX role?" or find out >>> "What roles do I have" should be able to fetch the (static) roles from some >>> roles utility class without consulting ZK. >>> Code that needs to check what nodes have a certain role (such as >>> placement) would obviously need ot consult ZK. >>> >>> Perhaps the SIP should also state some *Non-goals* or assertions such as >>> * Roles are static and immutable (also in zk) for the entire life cycle >>> of a node >>> >>> I also think we should state that the bar for adding new roles should be >>> high so it is not abused as any other tag or label for any tiny feature. It >>> should be reserved for functionality that may benefit from a dedicated set >>> of nodes. That may be clear already, but you never know... >>> >>> Jan >>> >>
