Can we test kerberized support in integration?
On April 13, 2017 at 10:24:43, Casey Stella (ceste...@gmail.com) wrote: Agreed, +1 On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > This should be in the dev guide and pr template > > > On April 13, 2017 at 09:43:48, Casey Stella (ceste...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Based on my understanding, we have a few axioms that we're working from: > > - The installer should install a complete and workable product (i.e. > after install, everything should work). Afterall, that has to be the > sensible definition of 'working' for an installer > - Metron should support running in a Kerberized environment > > If we are going to support kerberos and the installer is going to install > the product, then I would consider lack of kerberos support for a component > to block inclusion into the mpack. > > Casey > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Ryan Merriman <merrim...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > There is a PR up for review ( > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/518) that updates our > > MPack > > to support a Kerberized environment. There is also a PR up for review > that > > adds the REST service to the MPack ( > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/500). > > > > However, the REST application currently does not work in a kerberized > > environment. That work has already started so it won't be an issue for > > long but how should we handle situations like this in the future where we > > want to add a service but it's not quite ready for Kerberos? Should > > Kerberos support be a prerequisite before it's added to the MPack? Should > > we look at ways to make these services optional? Any other thoughts or > > ideas? > > > > Ryan > > > >
