I've put together a quick python POC targeting Ambari as the discovery source, just to prove that we can indeed get the necessary details via Ambari's REST API. It generates a proper topology.xml descriptor based on a simple descriptor (I chose YAML for this POC), which has a reference to what I've called a policy descriptor (the <gateway/> portion of the topology descriptor).
I am currently unable to update the KIP, but I can share the REST APIs I've employed if there is interest. As a result, I'm wondering if Knox should support provider configuration references in topology.xml, rather than having to duplicate it across descriptors. So, instead of <gateway><provider>...</gateway> in each topology.xml, have a single element that points to an external provider config (e.g., <policy-ref>$GATEWAY_HOME/conf/policy/my-named-provider-config.xml</policy-ref>). I've already externalized it for input to the POC, but I'm still copying the contents into the resulting topology descriptor; I think it would be better to copy only the reference. Thoughts? - Phil On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:55 PM, larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: > Good to hear, Phil. > > Yes, I was looking to go back and add some of the API specifics and > investigation details for at least Ambari and ZK. > If others make sense to add such as Consul, etcd, etc that would be good as > well and it would help to tease out some of what may be needed for the > abstraction API and config. > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Philip Zampino <pzamp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > This sounds like a good improvement from a usability perspective. > > > > I agree that Knox must continue its support for direct topology (XML) > > definitions, but for those deployments where there is a service registry > > (e.g., Ambari, Zookeeper, Consul, etc...) with knowledge of the topology, > > the simplified config coupled with the service discovery could reduce > > topology (especially ServiceConnectivity) errors. > > > > I also agree that consolidating provider configurations into named sets, > > which can be referenced from topology configurations, will be a good > > change, especially if there are commonly grouped providers employed by > > multiple topologies. > > > > Concerning the TODO sections, is your intention is that they contain the > > respective API facilities that will provide the information needed to > > populate a topology definition? > > > > - Phil > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:39 PM, larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > All - > > > > > > I have published an initial stab at a proposal for simplifying topology > > > management [1] - as I briefly mentioned on the 0.14.0 planning thread. > > > > > > There are a couple TODO sections that need some investigation for > Ambari > > > API and Zookeeper Registry API as discovery plugins. > > > > > > Please give the KIP a read and let me know if it makes sense or if you > > > would like to take on specific pieces of this work. If you would like > to > > > add other options or ideas, etc. > > > > > > I think that this will have a huge impact as usability improvements for > > > management of the gateway! > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > --larry > > > > > > 1. > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KNOX/KIP-8+ > > > Service+Discovery+and+Topology+Generation > > > > > >
