Do we need discovery.oak in the oak_tar runmode?

[Robert Munteanu <rm...@adobe.com>]

Hi,

It occurred to me that we're shipping a discovery mechanism for what is
basically a standalone setup - oak_tar uses a SegmentNodeStore backed
without any means of being part of a cluster.

Should we use discovery.standalone instead?

Thanks,

Robert

Re: Do we need discovery.oak in the oak_tar runmode?

[Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>]

Hi Stefan,

On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 11:00 +0100, Stefan Egli wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> discovery.standalone would not allow to use any topology connectors
> which
> connects multiple individual clusters with each other. So if we want
> to
> have that as a default we should include discovery.oak.

If we lose functionality then switching is not something I am going to
suggest.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Robert

> 
> Cheers,
> Stefan
> 
> On 21/11/16 10:12, "Robert Munteanu" <rm...@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > It occurred to me that we're shipping a discovery mechanism for
> > what is
> > basically a standalone setup - oak_tar uses a SegmentNodeStore
> > backed
> > without any means of being part of a cluster.
> > 
> > Should we use discovery.standalone instead?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Robert
> 
> 

Re: Do we need discovery.oak in the oak_tar runmode?

[Stefan Egli <st...@apache.org>]

Hi Robert,

discovery.standalone would not allow to use any topology connectors which
connects multiple individual clusters with each other. So if we want to
have that as a default we should include discovery.oak.

Cheers,
Stefan

On 21/11/16 10:12, "Robert Munteanu" <rm...@adobe.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>It occurred to me that we're shipping a discovery mechanism for what is
>basically a standalone setup - oak_tar uses a SegmentNodeStore backed
>without any means of being part of a cluster.
>
>Should we use discovery.standalone instead?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Robert