I would make a separate project and release it as a .nar. It can run as a Broker Protocol Handler or a Proxy Extension.
Then if the project gets traction we can add it to Pulsar core repo. Enrico and Il Mar 7 Giu 2022, 17:05 Dave Fisher <[email protected]> ha scritto: > If this is a REST endpoint then call it REST. It is very likely that users > will want to use HTTPS to use it. Calling it HTTP is a misnomer. > > All The Best, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 7, 2022, at 7:25 AM, Zhengxin Cai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks for bringing this up. > > I think building a separate HTTP server to serve REST produce/consume > > requests might be a good idea, like FunctionWorkerService, users can > choose > > to run with broker for simplicity or run as a separate component if user > > wants isolation and scale independently. > > I think we just missed this option when building V1, I think it's working > > considering. > > > > mattison chao <[email protected]> 于2022年6月6日周一 21:33写道： > > > >> Hi, Pulsar Community, > >> > >> We have the PIP-64 that introduces HTTP Rest API for producing/consuming > >> messages( > >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-64%3A-Introduce-REST-endpoints-for-producing%2C-consuming-and-reading-messages > >> ). But this proposal does not define the implementation. > >> > >> However, we already have producer HTTP API at the broker side. But, > there > >> are some problems, so refactored in this patch: > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15876. > >> > >> Then we add HTTP consumer in this patch: > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15942. > >> > >> But, currently have some ideas that do not reach a consensus. Like @Lari > >> Hotaril mentioned at pull request > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15942. > >> > >> It might not be a good idea to add the implementation to the main Pulsar > >> Admin API at all. > >> > >> HTTP consuming would be better to handle in a separate component. PIP-64 > >> doesn't determine that this should be part of Pulsar Admin API and we > >> should revisit this decision. I think it's a bad idea to add HTTP > consuming > >> to Pulsar Admin API and brokers. > >> > >> I want to discuss whether we should implement the HTTP endpoint in the > >> broker or separate it at another component(like pulsar-WebSocket). > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Mattison > >> > >
