I like the idea of combining the two applications for all the reasons already outlined on this thread. The user experience is going to be simplified by this change. However, I want to point out that it will also alter the plugin writer experience. Plugin writers that want to have their own content app will now need to provide it as a plugin for the content app (which is not a Django project). We should be able to clearly document this for plugin writers. pulp_docker plugin will need to adopt this change. For that reason I'd like us to make a decision on this soon.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 4:59 PM Jeff Ortel <jor...@redhat.com> wrote: > *BACKGROUND* > > The pulp3 content app and the streamer (in-progress) currently have a lot > of duplicate code and functionality. At the very least, I think there is a > opportunity to refactor both and share code. But, this would leave us with > two components with significant overlap in functionality. > > The functionality exclusive to the content-app: > - Optionally delegate file serving to a web server. (Eg: mod_xsendfile). > - Optional redirect to the streamer. > > The functionality exclusive to the streamer: > - Using the Remote & RemoteArtifact to download the file and stream on > demand. > > Not much difference which raises the question: "Why do we have both?" I > think the answer may be that we don't. > > *PROPOSAL* > > Let's pull the content-app out and merge it with the streamer. The new > content (app) would have *streamer* architecture & functionality. When a > requested artifact has not been downloaded, it would download/streamed > instead of REDIRECT. This does mean that deployments and development > environments would need to run an additional service to serve content. The > /pulp/content endpoint would be on a different port than the API. I see > this separation as a healthy thing. There is significant efficiency to be > gained as well. Let's start with eliminating the REDIRECTs. Cutting the > GET requests in half is a win for both the client, the network and the Pulp > web stack. Next is database queries. Since both applications needed to > perform many of the same queries, combining the applications will roughly > cut them in half as well. Since the streamer is based on asyncio and so > would the merged app. > > There are probably lots of other pros/cons I have not considered but it > seems relatively straight forward. > > I'm thinking the new content app/service would be named: *pulp-content*. > > Thoughts? > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
