Hi, Mario. Yes, I suppose this kind of goes against the "no additional proxy" requirement you have.
Hehehe. I'm a seeker of loopholes. In my scenario, it's still a plug-in design, but ES is my plug-in and not the other way around. Still only one HTTP interface in the mix, but it's mine and not ES's. I also have avoided the plug-in approach because I've read that it's marked for deprecation and eventual removal. Yet logstash and ES Head are still offered as plug-ins as are a boat-load of other facilities, so I am not really sure if that's still the case. And of course, your own plug-in has a much better chance to be updated to match exactly each new ES version to which you migrate. That's one of the downsides of third-party plug-ins: They lock you into older ES versions until the author gets a chance to update the plug-in. Brian On Friday, June 6, 2014 1:14:00 AM UTC-4, Mario Mueller wrote: > > > @Brian: > Interesting approach, but wouldn't this go against the initial "no > additional proxy" statement, if I got you right .. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/287ee9f9-b6cd-47d1-937e-f38406a614a1%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
