All,
The information about hosts/ports is known to Ambari and topology gets
that information from Ambari Stack params calls to cluster components
variables. e.g. When we enable HA, we get all namenodes hosts, ports and
whether SSL is on so we can setup scheme, host and port. Not only that but
through the ports can be change.
So there is a lot of information for UIs and REST hosts/ports and whether
we support HA or not.
Would the new port mapping, generate the scheme, port, HA enable/not,
host(s)? I can see if this information would be generated by call from Knox
stack and be part of the configuration then we would not need the topology.
One requirement would also be that when cluster configuration would change
the port mapping would need to be updated too. So maybe cluster services,
WEBHDFS for example, if we set HA and have a set of namenodes, ports,
scheme, when the service starts it would update knox data (plain file or
json).
Regards,
Jeff Rodriguez
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:11 AM, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote:
> All -
>
> It is becoming more and more clear that UI proxying is going to continue
> to be a moving target and we need to determine how to simplify the
> authoring and maintenance of UI rewrite rules.
>
> While I haven't put a lot of thought around it or even POC'd it yet, I am
> thinking about the possibility of leveraging the new port-mapping feature
> for UIs.
>
> This may at least be able to eliminate the need for the "gateway/topology"
> patch prefix by the fact that we dedicate specific ports to specific
> topologies.
>
> The downside of this is that it contradicts one of our early tenants of
> enabling deployments to have a single host:port available to access all of
> the REST API resources that they require.
>
> We may be able to justify that UIs be on a separate port however.
>
> Then we will also need to deal with backward compatibility issues for
> deployments that are currently using the existing service definitions - we
> may be able to accommodate this using the versioning built into service
> defs.
>
> Anyway, I just thought that I would start a discussion on this and see
> what folks have to say.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --larry
>
