Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Network Protocol #40

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Network Protocol #40

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

darach
Copy link
Member

@darach darach commented Jan 15, 2021

Signed-off-by: Darach Ennis darach@gmail.com

Signed-off-by: Darach Ennis <darach@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Darach Ennis <darach@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Darach Ennis <darach@gmail.com>
@darach darach added enhancement New feature or request open-review This RFC is undergoing open / public review with intent to proceed labels Jan 15, 2021
}
```

Connecting with an initial subscription for publication that
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think if we support publishing, we need to clarify how events originating from a pubsub session are identified in terms of eventid and origin uri. if a publications session is just forwarding events from somewhere else that already have some identifier, we are good. Should we require events to already be identified or do we want to introduce ids and origin uris for pubsub sessions?
This might be a future thing to add.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, there's going to be some iteration in the specification here as pipeline and connector endpoints differ significantly and this may move us to a slightly more verbose mapping ( exposing more metadata ). Specifically, tapping into sources and sinks may force handling this more explicitly. As we progress the implementation spike we can true up this draft accordingly


[summary]: #summary

Tremor Messaging Protocol Specification - API Proxy Model
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be added in the face of Troy being added sooner or later. I could imagine that all we want to expose at some point is a means to issue Troy statements. This could make this protocol spec obsolete. But we can easily evolve into that direction.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is an open question for now. An API proxy simply makes the current API ( REST ) available over messaging. And troy displaces the legacy yaml deployment model with a structured one with better hygienic error handling. We'll need to look into deployment in the context of clustering and deployment, say, via a troy repl and how that relates to API-based deployment changes.

@Licenser Licenser added this to open for review in RFC Status Jan 20, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request open-review This RFC is undergoing open / public review with intent to proceed
Projects
RFC Status
Open for review
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants