Reply inline, and also replied to the GH comment.
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 9:37 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote:
> The confusing detail is that in PIP-61 [1], the alternative that has been
> implemented in the Pulsar code base has been marked as the rejected
> alternative ("Return all advertised listeners(rejected)"). The preferred
> and proposed alternative "Only return the corresponding service URL" was
> never implemented.
>
>
Maybe that's not entirely true. You can configure 100s of listeners for all
schemes/protocols, but the code only returns the internal or requested or
first address for all 4 schemes (pulsar, pulsar+ssl, http, https, and one
service url, which i am not sure why it is needed, maybe for backward
compatibility). So while, it's not exactly approach 2, it's also not purely
approach 1. I can speculate and assume that in approach 1, the author meant
"one of each protocol" and that's actually what's implemented, but its not
clearly mentioned in the PIP. It would be great if we can get some input
from folks involved in PIP-61 and PIP-95 . Also, the wiki says PIP-95 [0]
is something else, while the PRs using PIP-95 [1] in commits refer to
something else [2] !
[0] -
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-95:-Transaction-coordinator-loading-mechanism
[1] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12056
[2] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12040
Regards
