> I totally understand this point. I wasn't there when the proxy was born
but
currently
my experience is that the Proxy is perceived as the primary endpoint in
front of the Pulsar cluster
especially when you run in k8s.
The Pulsar Proxy was born because there is no great solution at that point.
Ho
other comments ?
Enrico
Il giorno gio 9 set 2021 alle ore 09:15 Enrico Olivelli
ha scritto:
> Joe,
>
> Il giorno gio 9 set 2021 alle ore 04:31 Joe F ha
> scritto:
>
>> Enrico, my initial comment when you brought up PH was in relation to the
>> larger question about proxying, rather than looki
Joe,
Il giorno gio 9 set 2021 alle ore 04:31 Joe F ha
scritto:
> Enrico, my initial comment when you brought up PH was in relation to the
> larger question about proxying, rather than looking at this in a limited
> fashion on how to make it easy to add new PH in the proxy.
>
> But specifically
Enrico, my initial comment when you brought up PH was in relation to the
larger question about proxying, rather than looking at this in a limited
fashion on how to make it easy to add new PH in the proxy.
But specifically with this, here are my comments. Two very
distinct abstractions are being
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:07 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Sijie,
> Thanks for your questions, answers inline below.
>
> Il giorno gio 2 set 2021 alle ore 02:23 Sijie Guo ha
> scritto:
>
> > I would like to see the clarification between the broker protocol
> handlers
> > and proxy protocol handlers
(ping)
Il giorno ven 3 set 2021 alle ore 14:06 Enrico Olivelli
ha scritto:
> Sijie,
> Thanks for your questions, answers inline below.
>
> Il giorno gio 2 set 2021 alle ore 02:23 Sijie Guo ha
> scritto:
>
>> I would like to see the clarification between the broker protocol handlers
>> and prox
Sijie,
Thanks for your questions, answers inline below.
Il giorno gio 2 set 2021 alle ore 02:23 Sijie Guo ha
scritto:
> I would like to see the clarification between the broker protocol handlers
> and proxy protocol handlers before moving it to a vote thread.
>
A PH in the broker is very useful
I would like to see the clarification between the broker protocol handlers
and proxy protocol handlers before moving it to a vote thread.
I can see how it will cause confusion for protocol developers.
Yunze brought a good idea on KoP. But I don't think that's the right
direction. If you can give
Any other comment?
I would like to start a VOTE, but I feel we saw too few comments here
Please take a look.
I believe it will be a good fit for 2.9.0 release, that is going to be
released in the end of September
Enrico
Il Mar 31 Ago 2021, 18:14 Michael Marshall ha
scritto:
> +1, just read t
+1, just read through the PIP. Looks good to me.
- Michael
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:47 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hello Pulsar fellows,
>
> I have prepared a PIP about adding support for Protocol Handlers
>
> This is the GDoc
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hlc_BOpQTkWX8FgrvWSfk6h5x
Thanks for your explanation and I’m looking forward for the prototype
implementation.
Thanks,
Yunze
> 2021年8月31日 上午4:17，Enrico Olivelli 写道：
>
> Yunze,
>
> Il Lun 30 Ago 2021, 18:48 Yunze Xu ha
> scritto:
>
>> If I didn’t understand wrong, we’re going to use both broker version and
>> proxy
Yunze,
Il Lun 30 Ago 2021, 18:48 Yunze Xu ha
scritto:
> If I didn’t understand wrong, we’re going to use both broker version and
> proxy version KoP:
> - The proxy version is responsible for lookup/auth related requests like
> METADATA and SASL_XXX requests
> - The broker version is responsible
If I didn’t understand wrong, we’re going to use both broker version and proxy
version KoP:
- The proxy version is responsible for lookup/auth related requests like
METADATA and SASL_XXX requests
- The broker version is responsible for other requests that require broker to
be the topic owner, li
Il Lun 30 Ago 2021, 18:03 Lan Liang ha scritto:
> +1. Thanks for your work.
>
>
> I want to know can support pulsar proxy PH and pulsar broker PH at the
> same thime for one protocol ?
>
>
> like kop/mop, should we implement again?
I have a prototype for KOP but MOP story may be similar
Enrico
+1. Thanks for your work.
I want to know can support pulsar proxy PH and pulsar broker PH at the same
thime for one protocol ?
like kop/mop, should we implement again?
In MOP, some palace have use BrokerService, So we need change MOP or implement
MOP for pulsar proxy PH again if we use MO
Il giorno lun 30 ago 2021 alle ore 17:22 Yunze Xu
ha scritto:
> +1. Great idea.
>
> I’m not familiar with Pulsar Proxy and have a question. How can a proxy
> protocol handler
> Reuse the existing code of a protocol handler?
>
The code that runs on proxy will be much different from the code you h
+1. Great idea.
I’m not familiar with Pulsar Proxy and have a question. How can a proxy
protocol handler
Reuse the existing code of a protocol handler?
Thanks,
Yunze
> 2021年8月30日 下午4:47，Enrico Olivelli 写道：
>
> Hello Pulsar fellows,
>
> I have prepared a PIP about adding support for Protocol
Hello Pulsar fellows,
I have prepared a PIP about adding support for Protocol Handlers
This is the GDoc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hlc_BOpQTkWX8FgrvWSfk6h5xTQKMXnTcSuil0Nznrg/edit?usp=sharing
This is the PR for the implementation
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/11838/files
I am
18 matches
Mail list logo
