From user-return-12038-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@zookeeper.apache.org Mon Aug 5 11:47:02 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 96B19180181 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:47:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 62741 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2019 11:47:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 62729 invoked by uid 99); 5 Aug 2019 11:47:00 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 11:47:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7E3B0C1BB4 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:46:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.801 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cloudera.com Received: from mx1-he-de.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WROQm3X0eWTG for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:46:57 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::541; helo=mail-pg1-x541.google.com; envelope-from=nkalmar@cloudera.com; receiver= Received: from mail-pg1-x541.google.com (mail-pg1-x541.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::541]) by mx1-he-de.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-he-de.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 574AB7D3FB for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:46:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-x541.google.com with SMTP id r26so3648778pgl.10 for ; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 04:46:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Fgn5g5FP0zRudcZj0glU5WehH3T8gFVZQU3zKRYEnbg=; b=EHq3z3sCtPbY72vPinEb7glr4/irgyQKtX9VvjL0CSmTbxL6OOcyK0RpVqsZtVbS0K /Z41KipM+nE5keinVQ3TrnB0QKdZIqul4tDASFywgOOCeHa2T/ALM6MOnnmtfdydSN12 3g1xnoo77WzLYaTmsUuwsRrx4e/QLvl63XfXpOk4VGLw2rj+sgtegI3FF2yJFUV3Vt87 RJEOMfQe4HA9+Kxqw263tzxpZArU9BWUN1GkC0K+ej32vSn1uhATVfVgEz/hQeA1Uk9n oE923T6bfsz7rhoMFUmkGemhw0IunDFDl8/8sKhh7e8teuEV6Jw4Xcfdiqtmzfljvs01 IzzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWiasEImoEtZQtjzLevBNyqSwcj1+13Gjwudibb4ioeLPjbJsAY y9Au9aFlBLPDFE/3ucLWHr5RBB5msY7AFQQujnxHu34NHG4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwRLsxZaY7nQVppH0NWGTphZST84oTyqw2pe/h7wOIxd0Bevmcg+ngyiARyLAFkuOJ/9wNCWw5OFXzSkh5sNk4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ba93:: with SMTP id t19mr17368424pjr.139.1565005614680; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 04:46:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Norbert Kalmar Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:46:38 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Can SSL capability be satisfied by a smaller dependency than netty-all? To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc2fcb058f5d43b1" --000000000000bc2fcb058f5d43b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks for bringing this up Shawn. I also checked on my fork, netty-transport-native-epoll is the one actually needed. But yeah, netty-all is overkill. I created a jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3494 I will upload my PR soon. Regards, Norbert On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:07 AM Michael Han wrote: > >> SSL capability can be satisfied by one of the smaller netty jars, rather > than netty-all > > A brief look on the imports indicates that we might only need the handler > and transport jars from Netty. I'd suggest to create a JIRA to request this > change. > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:11 PM Shawn Heisey wrote: > > > We neglected to notice that netty is a required dependency for ZK SSL > > when we upgraded to ZK 3.5.5 in Solr. We have an issue to track this: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13665 > > > > I was noticing that the netty-all jar included in ZK is nearly 4MB ... > > and we will have to include it twice in the Solr download because it is > > needed for the SolrJ client as well as the Solr server. The Solr > > download is already quite large ... increasing it by another 7MB is > > painful. > > > > I'm hoping that ZK's SSL capability can be satisfied by one of the > > smaller netty jars, rather than netty-all. Is that a question that can > > be answered here on the ZK list? The specific class that is mentioned > > by the error is included in netty-transport. > > > > Thanks, > > Shawn > > > --000000000000bc2fcb058f5d43b1--