Hi Stephan, The new handler changes for Netty layer is straightforward and it is not really an workaround. Moreover if we think there is a better way to handle it in future we can easily unwind it as it is just a pluggable handler. Pushing these changes before FLIP-6 merge certainly avoids lot of conflicts and also we already spent cycles in reviewing and fixing rest of the authorization changes for other layers.
Regards, Vijay Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 12, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Vijay! > > The workaround you suggest may be doable, but I am wondering how much that > helps, because the authorization feature would be incomplete like that and > thus of limited use. > > I would also assume that merging it properly and in full use after the 1.2 > release would be a bit better - in general, we have often avoided last > minute additions of sensitive and complex features. > > Do you think it is more urgent to have this in Flink? > > Best, > Stephan > > >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Vijay <vijikar...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: >> >> Max and Ufuk, I respect your concerns and fully understand the importance >> of the network layer stack in Flink code base. Will you be comfortable to >> merge the code if I remove the Netty layer changes and leave the rest of >> the code. We can address the Netty code changes post 1.2 release? >> >> Regards, >> Vijay >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:38 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 12 December 2016 at 12:30:31, Maximilian Michels (m...@apache.org) >> wrote: >>>>> It seems like we lack the resources for now to properly to take >>>> care >>>> of your pull request before the release. Unless someone from >>>> the >>>> community is really eager to help out here, I would be in favor >>>> of >>>> merging the pull request to the master after the release branch >>>> has >>>> been forked off. We should make sure it gets the attention it deserves >>>> then. >>> >>> Thanks Max! I fully agree with your reasoning. +1 to not include this in >> 1.2 now, but look at it afterwards. I hope that OK with you Vijay. >>> >>> – Ufuk >>> >>> >> >>
