Agree with Matteo. +1 on this proposal.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 4:51 PM Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm +1 on this proposal. > > > It looks interesting, but I see a major problem with this approach. > > Basically we would be adding a way to tweak everything in Pulsar, from > > Connections to what we are reading and writing to storage. > > > This feature will become very hard to maintain for users, as Pulsar > changes > > and there are things that may be different in the future. > > That is true even today. The interceptor is by its very nature subject > to have access to these internal details and thus is more prone to API > breaks, either intended or inadvertent. > Perhaps it is something that should be communicated more clearly, so > that interceptor maintainers are aware of the stability of the APIs. > > Though, to be clear: I don't think that this proposal increases such risk. > > > > I am not clear on how this (allow interception of write and read > operations > > of a managed ledger and modify the payload) would work with e2e > > encryption. > > That is literally a MITM proposal. > > Yes, it allows you to modify the payload before it gets stored. People > can use that for multiple reasons: > * Enforcing data encryption > * Attaching headers or tracing information to the messages > > I don't see any problem with this approach as it builds on top of the > "interceptor" interface to extend its capabilities. > > This is only used if you supply a custom interceptor in your cluster > deployment. Otherwise, there will be no impact to > performance/stability. > > > > -- > Matteo Merli > <mme...@apache.org> > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:16 AM Joe F <joefranc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Agree with Enrico. > > > > I am not clear on how this (allow interception of write and read > operations > > of a managed ledger and modify the payload) would work with e2e > > encryption. > > That is literally a MITM proposal. > > > > Joe > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:04 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Madhavan, > > > Thanks for sharing your PIP. > > > It looks interesting, but I see a major problem with this approach. > > > Basically we would be adding a way to tweak everything in Pulsar, from > > > Connections to what we are reading and writing to storage. > > > > > > This feature will become very hard to maintain for users, as Pulsar > changes > > > and there are things that may be different in the future. > > > > > > We recently had other PIPs that try to add more flexibility and add > code > > > into Pulsar. > > > > > > It is not clear to me the kind of operations that you want to cover, > > > perhaps we could provide dedicated extensibility points to fulfill your > > > needs with specific APIs, that we can maintain and for which we can > > > guarantee > > > the compatibility in the future > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > Il giorno gio 18 nov 2021 alle ore 16:31 Narayanan, Madhavan > > > <madhavan_naraya...@intuit.com.invalid> ha scritto: > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > I request your help to review, discuss and resolve the problem and > > > > solution approach outlined in the PIP entry > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12858 > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Madhavan > > > > > > > >
