Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

+1 On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Yiming Zang wrote: > LGTM +1 > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > >> Looks good to me. >> Enrico >> >> On mar 19 set 2017, 17:22 Jia Zhai wrote: >> >> > Any thoughts or comments on this. :) >> > If not, would like to mark this BP a

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

LGTM +1 On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Looks good to me. > Enrico > > On mar 19 set 2017, 17:22 Jia Zhai wrote: > > > Any thoughts or comments on this. :) > > If not, would like to mark this BP approved. And we will prepare an > > initial PR for detailed discussion a

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

Looks good to me. Enrico On mar 19 set 2017, 17:22 Jia Zhai wrote: > Any thoughts or comments on this. :) > If not, would like to mark this BP approved. And we will prepare an > initial PR for detailed discussion and comments. > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >> On Wed,

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

Any thoughts or comments on this. :) If not, would like to mark this BP approved. And we will prepare an initial PR for detailed discussion and comments. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Sijie Guo wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > > > > > > > 2017-09-13 10:31

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > > 2017-09-13 10:31 GMT+02:00 Jia Zhai : > >> Thanks a lot for your time Yiming and Enrico. :) >> >> Regarding the security, we could do it in a separate BP, and make this BP >> more focus on filling up the useful endpoints. How about it

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

2017-09-13 10:31 GMT+02:00 Jia Zhai : > Thanks a lot for your time Yiming and Enrico. :) > > Regarding the security, we could do it in a separate BP, and make this BP > more focus on filling up the useful endpoints. How about it? > OK, but please consider that the more utility you add to the end

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

Thanks a lot for your time Yiming and Enrico. :) Regarding the security, we could do it in a separate BP, and make this BP more focus on filling up the useful endpoints. How about it? On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi Jia, > I am OK with the idea of having standard H

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

Hi Jia, I am OK with the idea of having standard HTTP API, this will help development of (non-Java) tools. It is not clear to me if we are going to add an http API useful for "managing bookies" or a new HTTP REST-like Client API to BookKeeper. I am referring to the fact that in the proposal there

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

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

Re: [DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

+ 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 wrote: > Hi all, > > Based on Github #278 , I > have j

[DISCUSS] BP-17: define BookKeeper public http endpoints

Hi all, Based on Github #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