Close this vote by 3 binding +1s
- Penghui
- Yunze
- Jiwei
And 2 non-binding +1s
- Zike
- Rui
Thanks,
Baodi Shi
On Aug 2, 2023 at 10:47:32, guo jiwei wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
>
> Regards
> Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 10:24 AM Rui Fu wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
> Bes
Hi Heesung,
I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
The motivation and the solution look good to me.
I just want to leave some comments to make the proposal clear
for users and developers.
[DISCUSS] PIP-290 Provide a way to implement WSS E2E encryption and not
need to expose the private key to the WebSocket ProxyHi dev, I proposed
this PIP, https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20923, to provide a way to
implement WSS E2E encryption and does not need to expose the private key to
the
Hi PengHui,
Thank you for your questions. Please find my answers inline.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 3:47 AM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi Heesung,
>
> I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
> The motivation and the solution look good to me.
>
> I just want to leave some comments to make the proposal
>> If so, I think it could be a good reason for introducing binary
protocol support here. For the security sensitive users like financial
application. Usually they will try to reduce the dependencies (less
dependencies, less
CVEs and the exposed service endpoints. For example, the flink connector
a
> One of the advantages of this proposal (add these optional dstBrokerUrl
fields in the existing CommandCloseProducer and CommandCloseConsumer) is
the backward compatibility
Ah, yes. I missed this point. It's a good convince.
> After the client connects to the destination broker, the next command
