[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13929?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16970045#comment-16970045
]
Chesnay Schepler commented on FLINK-13929:
------------------------------------------
1) Hopefully after the rework of the client-side code going on we can get rid
of all usages of the JM port & address.
2) We shouldn't only use a single address or port because this would inherently
open up the JobMaster to outside access. Currently, the actor system host &
port only has to be accessible from within the network.
In contrast, the REST API port and address only have to accessible from outside
the network.
As such the duality here serves some basic access-control purposes, and I don't
see us changing that.
3) Fair enough.
Overall I'd suggest to open separate issues for the points you raised.
> Revisit REST & JM URL
> ----------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-13929
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13929
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Runtime / Configuration, Runtime / Coordination
> Reporter: Zili Chen
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently we have several issues on URL(i.e., ADDRESS and PORT)
> configurations of REST(WebMonitor) and JM(DispatcherRMComponent).
> # Client side code should only retrieve REST PORT but for historical reasons
> we sometimes pass JM PORT. And this doesn't become a problem because some of
> them are unused while others JM PORT is incorrectly set with REST PORT value
> so we do incorrectly twice but conclude in success.
> # Generally speaking, back to the design of
> [FLIP-6|https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=65147077],
> there is no concept named {{WebMonitor}}. The responsibility to communicate
> with client is covered by {{Dispatcher}}. So it seems no argument to separate
> {{JobManagerOptions.ADDRESS}} and {{RestOptions.ADDRESS}}. Besides, we
> unfortunately use different PORT because REST server uses a netty connection
> while JM requires an actor system which has to bind to another port.
> Theoretically all message can be passed via the same port, either we handle
> REST requests in Akka scope or handle RPC in netty scope, so that this
> "two-port" requirement is hopefully not required then.
> # nit: Deprecated config {{WebOptions.PORT}} still in use at
> {{YarnEntrypointUtils.loadConfiguration}}. This should be easily resolved by
> replaced with {{RestOptions.PORT}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
