Sure, I think the current HTTP endpoints in Twitter are only designed for Twitter specific, such as check quorum loss, check rack/region diversity. So the endpoints convention in Twitter are not the same as in the proposal. I think it would be great to have an agreement on the API naming design, so I like the API design in the proposal, I think the proposal looks good to me.
Besides, we're currently only using GET functionalities in Twitter, but I notice there're a lot of POST and PUT APIs in the proposal which could change the bookie state or trigger some heavy workload. These APIs looks a bit risky to me if we don't have any authentication enabled (in Twitter). On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > + Yiming > > Yiming, if you have time, please take a look at this BP. let's see if > there are any conflicts with those you added for autorecovery. > > - Sijie > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Based on Github #278 <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/278>, I >> have just posted a proposal regarding define BookKeeper public http >> endpoints: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BOOKKEEPER/BP- >> 17%3A+Define+BookKeeper+public+http+endpoints >> >> >> Github #278 <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/278> introduces >> BookKeeper Http Endpoint module. However there are only two endpoints, >> which is “/heartbeat” and “/api/config/serverconfig”, defined in #278. In >> order to fully leverage the http modules, The goal of this BP is to add >> more endpoints to this modules. >> >> Any comments are welcome and appreciated. >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> -Jia >> > >
