+1
Thanks,
Xiaoyu Hou
Zike Yang 于2022年6月27日周一 13:16写道：
> +1
>
> Zike Yang
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:26 AM PengHui Li wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:53 AM Yubiao Feng
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Pulsar community:
> > >
> > > I open a pip to discuss "Suppor
Hi Michael Marshall
> - Function: I am not familiar with function now. I will read the
implementation of the function and give you an extra reply (I've been busy
lately, so will be a little late).
I have checked the API used by function workers, including “admin API v2
Functions”, "function works
Hi Dave
> Is there any intention in the future to change this to the default
behaviour, in 3.0.0?
There are no plans for that right now
> Is that the motivation to feature flag this change, rather than treat it
as a bugfix?
Yes, the design goal now is that rejection of unknown request parameter
Hi Michael Marshall
> I think we should go further and add this configuration option to the
function worker and possibly the proxy.
- Proxy: If the broker rejects a request with unknown parameters, the proxy
will behave the same as the broker, so the proxy does not need to do
additional support.
Hi Haiting
> Can we get a warning log on broker, even if this is false. This would be
useful for existing clusters to turn on this feature.
I think it is a good idea. It may not be easy to implement, but I will try
it. I will explain in PR whether this is implemented and why.
Thanks
Yubiao Feng
Hi Yubiao,
+1
Is there any intention in the future to change this to the default
behaviour, in 3.0.0? I assume there are going to be some other areas of the
code base and integrations that would need to deal with the new failure
mode. So it does make sense to phase this in gradually. Is that the
On 2022/06/22 02:52:44 Yubiao Feng wrote:
> Hi, Pulsar community:
>
> I open a pip to discuss "Support the admin API to check unknown request
> parameters"
>
> Proposal Link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16135
>
> ### Motivation
>
> The design of the Admin API is now such that if
I think this optional configuration is a good idea. I agree that a 204
is misleading for a malformed request.
Additionally, I think we should go further and add this configuration
option to the function worker and possibly the proxy (which handles a
single post call) as well, since they also handl
+1
Zike Yang
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:26 AM PengHui Li wrote:
> +1
>
> Penghui
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:53 AM Yubiao Feng
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Pulsar community:
> >
> > I open a pip to discuss "Support the admin API to check unknown request
> > parameters"
> >
> > Proposal Link: https://
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:53 AM Yubiao Feng
wrote:
> Hi, Pulsar community:
>
> I open a pip to discuss "Support the admin API to check unknown request
> parameters"
>
> Proposal Link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16135
>
> ### Motivation
>
> The design of the Admin API is
Hi, Pulsar community:
I open a pip to discuss "Support the admin API to check unknown request
parameters"
Proposal Link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16135
### Motivation
The design of the Admin API is now such that if an incorrect parameter name
is submitted, this property (if not r
11 matches
Mail list logo
