zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From eolivelli <...@git.apache.org>
Subject [GitHub] zookeeper issue #227: ZOOKEEPER-2755 Allow to subclass ClientCnxnSocketNetty...
Date Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:18:46 GMT
Github user eolivelli commented on the issue:

    @ivankelly thank you for your time
    > The commit message explains what the patch is doing, but not why. The reason I'm
pushing back a lot on this, is that I think it adds indirection and complexity, and I don't
see what the benefit is over simply binding to 0.
    I will rewrite the message and explain better.
    Benefits for tests: I agree with you that binding to 0 will solve the problem of running
multiple tests on the same machine, this change will only add the ability to work without
opening real ports.
    For production: With in-vm transport you will not open ZK clientPort to the world, which
in turn will be a security risk. If you open the clientPort, even only on loopback you need
to configure ZK security at ZK level or for instance iptables
    >  you've created a static helper class
    Yes, unfortunately there is no automatic way to map local addresses to InetAddress. I
have included the "mapToLocalAddress" method which is used only in tests in order to define
a standard practice to map LocalAddress. This patch does not introduce an official CnxnFactory
for Local transport, but there is a need to define how it should be used. Maybe it would be
better to add the official CnxnFactory
    > How are you using zookeeper in single node mode? Is it only as a metadata store for
    Yes, I am using it to run BookKeeper + Bookie inside the same JVM. I am using primary
BK as write-ahead-log for replicated states machines.
    For every application now I need to implement a BookKeeper based WAL + local disk WAL,
when BookKeeper is really good even in local mode.
    I really would like to abstract the metadata-store and bookie discovery in BK to not use
ZK but I think this will be the work in the next year, actually (4.5 release) we are focusing
the efforts on other aspects.
    I have implemented Local Transport in BK too. On BookKeeper I had the same security problem
because BK 4.4 did not have "public" security support at all (in 4.5 we have it with SSL +

If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastructure@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.

View raw message