Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add connect mode to the socket source #2042

Open
ghost opened this issue Mar 12, 2020 · 6 comments
Open

Add connect mode to the socket source #2042

ghost opened this issue Mar 12, 2020 · 6 comments
Labels
meta: feedback Anything related to customer/user feedback. needs: approval Needs review & approval before work can begin. needs: more demand Needs more demand before work can begin, +1 or comment to support. needs: requirements Needs a a list of requirements before work can be begin source: socket Anything `socket` source related type: enhancement A value-adding code change that enhances its existing functionality.

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 12, 2020

Currently the socket source uses the specified socket address (for TCP/UDP) or path (for UDS) to create a socket with such an address and listen for connections on it.

However, in some circumstances it might be useful to not listen, but connect to sockets and read data from them.

I propose to add new configuration option, which would take two possible values, listen (the current behavior) and connect (the new mode). I'm not sure what would be the best name for the new configuration option. It could have been mode, but mode is already used to specify whether the socket is TCP/UDP/UDS.

@ghost ghost added source: socket Anything `socket` source related type: enhancement A value-adding code change that enhances its existing functionality. labels Mar 12, 2020
@ghost ghost mentioned this issue Mar 12, 2020
@binarylogic binarylogic assigned bruceg and unassigned bruceg Mar 12, 2020
@binarylogic
Copy link
Contributor

@bruceg I'm curious what you think about this, and how much work it would be. I'm wondering if this is better solved with an entirely different source?

@binarylogic binarylogic added needs: approval Needs review & approval before work can begin. needs: requirements Needs a a list of requirements before work can be begin meta: feedback Anything related to customer/user feedback. labels Mar 12, 2020
@bruceg
Copy link
Member

bruceg commented Mar 12, 2020

From a user point of view, I think it makes sense to put it into the same module. From a code point of view, it will require some significant reorganization. However, since the socket source is already a module, it is partially set up for this already.

I'd like to say it should be a quick conversion, since the core protocol is trivial and unchanged, but the connection-based wrapping would be completely different. Should definitely be doable within a sprint though.

FTR, this mode only makes sense for TCP and UDS modes, since UDP doesn't have connections as such.

@bruceg bruceg self-assigned this Mar 12, 2020
@binarylogic
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks. Let's hold off for the time being. I'm curious how much demand we have for this.

@binarylogic binarylogic added the needs: more demand Needs more demand before work can begin, +1 or comment to support. label Mar 12, 2020
@jszwedko
Copy link
Member

@jszwedko
Copy link
Member

Relevant comment on another issue: #2041 (comment)

@fatihusta
Copy link

Is there any update for this issue?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
meta: feedback Anything related to customer/user feedback. needs: approval Needs review & approval before work can begin. needs: more demand Needs more demand before work can begin, +1 or comment to support. needs: requirements Needs a a list of requirements before work can be begin source: socket Anything `socket` source related type: enhancement A value-adding code change that enhances its existing functionality.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants