[infinispan-dev] Single Port Client

[Sebastian Laskawiec]

An updated PR might be found here:
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/pull/6133

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 3:27 PM Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> During Infinispan F2F, I had a short discussion with Tristan on Single
> Port client-side implementation. Back then, we agreed that the client
> should always send a Hotrod Ping request and if won't get any response (or
> get some HTTP content back), it will try to upgrade to the Hotrod protocol
> using Single Port.
>
> I've been playing with the implementation for a while, and implementing it
> this way seems a bit "inconvenient" to me. The Ping Operation uses 60s
> timeout, which seems to be a good fit as a default. Unfortunately, for the
> Single Port functionality, this means we'd need to wait 60s until we try to
> send HTTP request and do an upgrade. Also, another problematic part is in
> Netty's HTTP handlers (HttpObjectDecoder, HttpServerCodec and
> ByteToMessageDecoder). When those classes fail to decode a message (REST
> expects HTTP rather than a stream of bytes specific to Hotrod protocol),
> they just ignore it and keep the channel in active state (which also makes
> sense for HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2).
>
> At this point, my intuition tells, that this doesn't look right and seems
> to be a over-complicated. The whole HTTP upgrade idea seems to work the
> other way around, use HTTP as a fallback and then upgrade to other
> protocols. Forcing it to work a bit differently requires some more effort.
>
> What if we preserved the Single Port setting in the client configuration
> but implemented it as an enum with the following values - true/false/auto.
> In automatic mode, the client would check if the server port is set to
> 8\d{1,3} (this covers 80, 8080, 8081, 8443 and friends). If that is true,
> we'd try to follow HTTP Upgrade procedure. This looks very simple and I
> think this might actually work. Please note, that we need the single port
> setting in the client configuration to cover some corner cases like the
> Single Port exposed on different port (like 4444) or Hot Rod exposed on
> port that starts with 8.
>
> What do you think about such simplification?
>
> Thanks,
> Sebastian
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20181211/1c71b2d9/attachment-0001.html