Gwen, That sounds about right to me. I've found that when ports are bound dynamically, RAII-style greatly simplifies things since if you've bound them as early as possible, then you'll always be able to get at the port even if nothing is accept()ing yet.
-Ewen On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Thanks. I think I found a solution that doesn't take new locks or buffers: > > 1. Change the portProtocol map to ConcurrentHashMap (which makes it both > thread-safe and mutable). Initialize as empty map. > 2. Initialize both processors and acceptors with the hashmap, also tell > each acceptor which protocol it is accepting > 3. After the acceptors bind() but before run(), register them with the > hashmap. > > Anyone sees flaws here? > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Hi Gwen, > > > > Can we buffer the requests that arrive before acceptors are up. Once we > > have the acceptors, the buffer can be cleared. However, this adds on to > the > > complexity. > > > > On Sunday, April 5, 2015, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm trying to rebase KAFKA-1809 after KAFKA-1501 was committed, and I'm > > > running into a chicken and egg problem. > > > > > > In my design, SocketServer creates a map of port->SecurityProtocol. > > > This map is passed to Processor when it is initialized, and Processor > > uses > > > it to route requests to the correct channel. > > > > > > However, after KAFKA-1501, we may not know the ports until after > > Acceptors > > > are started, and we want to start Acceptors after Processors are > already > > > running... > > > > > > One solution is that if Processor finds that all keys in the map are > "0", > > > it will route all requests to PLAINTEXT channel. However, this will > > prevent > > > us from using the new port-binding test code when testing TLS and SASL, > > > bringing the whole port randomization problem back. > > > > > > Another option is new flag that will allow us to bind Acceptors before > > > starting Processors but not accept anything until this flag is set, > after > > > the Processors started? This seems a bit tricky though. > > > > > > Anyone has better ideas? > > > > > > Gwen > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > Ashish > > > -- Thanks, Ewen
