You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@gossip.apache.org by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com> on 2016/05/28 17:06:20 UTC
Re: Transports and URLs/URIs
I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GOSSIP-2. I am creating the
tickets in scrum style. I do not want anyone to think that this means the
issue is locked for discussion once it lands in Jira, because we still
charge course at any time. @Josh as to your point, I typically call this
'guy who does the work choice' . During the coding the developer will be
closer to the problem and make the call that makes the most sense. I think
we should only use whatever RFC guidance is out there. 'udp' is a lower
level protocol than http, but I would be ok with either.
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right, I get that. I was more pointing out why not just "udp://"
> instead of "gossip:udp://". It looks like java.net.URI can still parse
> it, just doesn't quite parse as I'd expect :).
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > "At first glance, what is the leading "gossip:" buying you over a
> normally
> > parsable URI?"
> > First not everything will be http so:
> >
> > My thinking is:
> >
> > firstpart:secondpart://host:port/?params
> >
> > gossip:udp://host -> cluster using the current UDP protocol
> >
> > gossip:tcp://host -> cluster using tcp protocol
> >
> > gossip:http://host -> cluster using http over tcp
> >
> > Basically clusters would ONLY speak one protocol, and the parts of a URI
> > are a build in "configuration" system. Otherwise we need to have a
> separate
> > parameter that must be part of the gossip messages for all the options.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> (yay, mailing lists!)
> >>
> >> At first glance, what is the leading "gossip:" buying you over a
> >> normally parsable URI? Might it be better to embed that in the path?
> >> My thinking is that is might also make it easier to deploy this into
> >> existing web containers/appservers as well as allow you to deploy some
> >> normal informational webserver alongside the gossip "service" (e.g.
> >> /gossip is the service, while / is some metrics/monitoring service).
> >>
> >> - Josh
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hello all,
> >> >
> >> > There are two connection related items in the proposal (
> >> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GossipProposal)
> >> >
> >> > - Explore HTTP transport as an alternative to UDP
> >> > - Secure communications
> >> > - Transport security using a pre-shared key
> >> > - Public Key Infrastructure
> >> >
> >> > Currently the message sent over the wire sends two connection related
> >> > parameters host and port. Each time a message is send a UDP
> connection is
> >> > established. Also one interesting bit is that the messages do not
> have an
> >> > ACK, the active gossip thread picks a partner and sends a message.
> >> >
> >> > My thinking is we would like a few things
> >> > 1) a UDP service that keeps connections alive or TCP?
> >> > 2) an http service (Ie run gossip as a tomcat/jetty webapp)
> >> > 3) Encryption
> >> >
> >> > I think an interesting way to go about this would be URI's that will
> give
> >> > us more flexibility than (host, port)
> >> >
> >> > gossip:udp://host:port
> >> > gossip:tcp://host:port
> >> > gossip:http://host:port
> >> >
> >> > I believe now that protocols like http(S) are out of favor vs start
> TLS.
> >> >
> >> > That could be something like
> >> >
> >> > gossip:http://host:port;tls=true
> >>
>
Re: Transports and URLs/URIs
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
I merged in gossip-4 and could use a second set of eyes.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Please review:
> https://github.com/edwardcapriolo/incubator-gossip/tree/uri
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GOSSIP-2
>
> This is half of the plumbing.The rest will be added when we actually build
> 2 protocols.
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GOSSIP-2. I am creating
>> the tickets in scrum style. I do not want anyone to think that this means
>> the issue is locked for discussion once it lands in Jira, because we still
>> charge course at any time. @Josh as to your point, I typically call this
>> 'guy who does the work choice' . During the coding the developer will be
>> closer to the problem and make the call that makes the most sense. I think
>> we should only use whatever RFC guidance is out there. 'udp' is a lower
>> level protocol than http, but I would be ok with either.
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Right, I get that. I was more pointing out why not just "udp://"
>>> instead of "gossip:udp://". It looks like java.net.URI can still parse
>>> it, just doesn't quite parse as I'd expect :).
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > "At first glance, what is the leading "gossip:" buying you over a
>>> normally
>>> > parsable URI?"
>>> > First not everything will be http so:
>>> >
>>> > My thinking is:
>>> >
>>> > firstpart:secondpart://host:port/?params
>>> >
>>> > gossip:udp://host -> cluster using the current UDP protocol
>>> >
>>> > gossip:tcp://host -> cluster using tcp protocol
>>> >
>>> > gossip:http://host -> cluster using http over tcp
>>> >
>>> > Basically clusters would ONLY speak one protocol, and the parts of a
>>> URI
>>> > are a build in "configuration" system. Otherwise we need to have a
>>> separate
>>> > parameter that must be part of the gossip messages for all the options.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> (yay, mailing lists!)
>>> >>
>>> >> At first glance, what is the leading "gossip:" buying you over a
>>> >> normally parsable URI? Might it be better to embed that in the path?
>>> >> My thinking is that is might also make it easier to deploy this into
>>> >> existing web containers/appservers as well as allow you to deploy some
>>> >> normal informational webserver alongside the gossip "service" (e.g.
>>> >> /gossip is the service, while / is some metrics/monitoring service).
>>> >>
>>> >> - Josh
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Edward Capriolo <
>>> edlinuxguru@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Hello all,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There are two connection related items in the proposal (
>>> >> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GossipProposal)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - Explore HTTP transport as an alternative to UDP
>>> >> > - Secure communications
>>> >> > - Transport security using a pre-shared key
>>> >> > - Public Key Infrastructure
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Currently the message sent over the wire sends two connection
>>> related
>>> >> > parameters host and port. Each time a message is send a UDP
>>> connection is
>>> >> > established. Also one interesting bit is that the messages do not
>>> have an
>>> >> > ACK, the active gossip thread picks a partner and sends a message.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > My thinking is we would like a few things
>>> >> > 1) a UDP service that keeps connections alive or TCP?
>>> >> > 2) an http service (Ie run gossip as a tomcat/jetty webapp)
>>> >> > 3) Encryption
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I think an interesting way to go about this would be URI's that
>>> will give
>>> >> > us more flexibility than (host, port)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > gossip:udp://host:port
>>> >> > gossip:tcp://host:port
>>> >> > gossip:http://host:port
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I believe now that protocols like http(S) are out of favor vs start
>>> TLS.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > That could be something like
>>> >> >
>>> >> > gossip:http://host:port;tls=true
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Transports and URLs/URIs
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
Please review:
https://github.com/edwardcapriolo/incubator-gossip/tree/uri
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GOSSIP-2
This is half of the plumbing.The rest will be added when we actually build
2 protocols.
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GOSSIP-2. I am creating
> the tickets in scrum style. I do not want anyone to think that this means
> the issue is locked for discussion once it lands in Jira, because we still
> charge course at any time. @Josh as to your point, I typically call this
> 'guy who does the work choice' . During the coding the developer will be
> closer to the problem and make the call that makes the most sense. I think
> we should only use whatever RFC guidance is out there. 'udp' is a lower
> level protocol than http, but I would be ok with either.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Right, I get that. I was more pointing out why not just "udp://"
>> instead of "gossip:udp://". It looks like java.net.URI can still parse
>> it, just doesn't quite parse as I'd expect :).
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > "At first glance, what is the leading "gossip:" buying you over a
>> normally
>> > parsable URI?"
>> > First not everything will be http so:
>> >
>> > My thinking is:
>> >
>> > firstpart:secondpart://host:port/?params
>> >
>> > gossip:udp://host -> cluster using the current UDP protocol
>> >
>> > gossip:tcp://host -> cluster using tcp protocol
>> >
>> > gossip:http://host -> cluster using http over tcp
>> >
>> > Basically clusters would ONLY speak one protocol, and the parts of a URI
>> > are a build in "configuration" system. Otherwise we need to have a
>> separate
>> > parameter that must be part of the gossip messages for all the options.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> (yay, mailing lists!)
>> >>
>> >> At first glance, what is the leading "gossip:" buying you over a
>> >> normally parsable URI? Might it be better to embed that in the path?
>> >> My thinking is that is might also make it easier to deploy this into
>> >> existing web containers/appservers as well as allow you to deploy some
>> >> normal informational webserver alongside the gossip "service" (e.g.
>> >> /gossip is the service, while / is some metrics/monitoring service).
>> >>
>> >> - Josh
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Edward Capriolo <
>> edlinuxguru@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hello all,
>> >> >
>> >> > There are two connection related items in the proposal (
>> >> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GossipProposal)
>> >> >
>> >> > - Explore HTTP transport as an alternative to UDP
>> >> > - Secure communications
>> >> > - Transport security using a pre-shared key
>> >> > - Public Key Infrastructure
>> >> >
>> >> > Currently the message sent over the wire sends two connection related
>> >> > parameters host and port. Each time a message is send a UDP
>> connection is
>> >> > established. Also one interesting bit is that the messages do not
>> have an
>> >> > ACK, the active gossip thread picks a partner and sends a message.
>> >> >
>> >> > My thinking is we would like a few things
>> >> > 1) a UDP service that keeps connections alive or TCP?
>> >> > 2) an http service (Ie run gossip as a tomcat/jetty webapp)
>> >> > 3) Encryption
>> >> >
>> >> > I think an interesting way to go about this would be URI's that will
>> give
>> >> > us more flexibility than (host, port)
>> >> >
>> >> > gossip:udp://host:port
>> >> > gossip:tcp://host:port
>> >> > gossip:http://host:port
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe now that protocols like http(S) are out of favor vs start
>> TLS.
>> >> >
>> >> > That could be something like
>> >> >
>> >> > gossip:http://host:port;tls=true
>> >>
>>
>
>