Not sure I like the introduction of another component at the front. My original idea for allowing the client to choose the container was:
- with TLS: use SNI to choose the container - without TLS: enhance the PING operation of the Hot Rod protocol to also take the server name. This would need to be a requirement when exposing multiple containers over the same endpoint. From a client API perspective, there would be no difference between the above two approaches: just specify the server name and depending on the transport, select the right one. Tristan On 29/04/2016 17:29, Sebastian Laskawiec wrote: > Dear Community, > > Please have a look at the design of Multi tenancy support for Infinispan > [1]. I would be more than happy to get some feedback from you. > > Highlights: > > * The implementation will be based on a Router (which will be built > based on Netty) > * Multiple Hot Rod and REST servers will be attached to the router > which in turn will be attached to the endpoint > * The router will operate on a binary protocol when using Hot Rod > clients and path-based routing when using REST > * Memcached will be out of scope > * The router will support SSL+SNI > > Thanks > Sebastian > > [1] > https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/wiki/Multi-tenancy-for-Hotrod-Server > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > -- Tristan Tarrant Infinispan Lead JBoss, a division of Red Hat _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
