[infinispan-dev] Multi tenancy support for Infinispan

[Sebastian Laskawiec]

Hey Tristan!

If I understood you correctly, you're suggesting to enhance the
ProtocolServer to support multiple EmbeddedCacheManagers (probably with
shared transport and by that I mean started on the same Netty server).

Yes, that also could work but I'm not convinced if we won't loose some
configuration flexibility.

Let's consider a configuration file -
https://gist.github.com/slaskawi/c85105df571eeb56b12752d7f5777ce9, how for
example use authentication for CacheContainer cc1 (and not for cc2) and
encryption for cc1 (and not for cc1)? Both are tied to hotrod-connector. I
think using this kind of different options makes sense in terms of multi
tenancy. And please note that if we start a new Netty server for each
CacheContainer - we almost ended up with the router I proposed.

The second argument for using a router is extracting the routing logic into
a separate module. Otherwise we would probably end up with several
if(isMultiTenent()) statements in Hotrod as well as REST server. Extracting
this has also additional advantage that we limit changes in those modules
(actually there will be probably 2 changes #1 we should be able to start a
ProtocolServer without starting a Netty server (the Router will do it in
multi tenant configuration) and #2 collect Netty handlers from
ProtocolServer).

To sum it up - the router's implementation seems to be more complicated but
in the long run I think it might be worth it.

I also wrote the summary of the above here:
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/wiki/Multi-tenancy-for-Hotrod-Server#alternative-approach

@Galder - you wrote a huge part of the Hot Rod server - I would love to
hear your opinion as well.

Thanks
Sebastian



On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Tristan Tarrant <ttarrant at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Not sure I like the introduction of another component at the front.
>
> My original idea for allowing the client to choose the container was:
>
> - with TLS: use SNI to choose the container
> - without TLS: enhance the PING operation of the Hot Rod protocol to
> also take the server name. This would need to be a requirement when
> exposing multiple containers over the same endpoint.
>
>  From a client API perspective, there would be no difference between the
> above two approaches: just specify the server name and depending on the
> transport, select the right one.
>
> Tristan
>
> On 29/04/2016 17:29, Sebastian Laskawiec wrote:
> > Dear Community,
> >
> > Please have a look at the design of Multi tenancy support for Infinispan
> > [1]. I would be more than happy to get some feedback from you.
> >
> > Highlights:
> >
> >   * The implementation will be based on a Router (which will be built
> >     based on Netty)
> >   * Multiple Hot Rod and REST servers will be attached to the router
> >     which in turn will be attached to the endpoint
> >   * The router will operate on a binary protocol when using Hot Rod
> >     clients and path-based routing when using REST
> >   * Memcached will be out of scope
> >   * The router will support SSL+SNI
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sebastian
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/wiki/Multi-tenancy-for-Hotrod-Server
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > infinispan-dev mailing list
> > infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> >
>
> --
> Tristan Tarrant
> Infinispan Lead
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20160511/9fd80faa/attachment-0001.html