<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> BACKGROUND The pulp3 content app and the streamer (in-progress) currently have a lot of duplicate code and functionality. At the very least, I think there is a opportunity to refactor both and share code. But, this would leave us with two components with significant overlap in functionality. The functionality exclusive to the content-app: - Optionally delegate file serving to a web server. (Eg: mod_xsendfile). - Optional redirect to the streamer. The functionality exclusive to the streamer: - Using the Remote & RemoteArtifact to download the file and stream on demand. Not much difference which raises the question: "Why do we have both?" I think the answer may be that we don't. PROPOSAL Let's pull the content-app out and merge it with the streamer. The new content (app) would have streamer architecture & functionality. When a requested artifact has not been downloaded, it would download/streamed instead of REDIRECT. This does mean that deployments and development environments would need to run an additional service to serve content. The /pulp/content endpoint would be on a different port than the API. I see this separation as a healthy thing. There is significant efficiency to be gained as well. Let's start with eliminating the REDIRECTs. Cutting the GET requests in half is a win for both the client, the network and the Pulp web stack. Next is database queries. Since both applications needed to perform many of the same queries, combining the applications will roughly cut them in half as well. Since the streamer is based on asyncio and so would the merged app. There are probably lots of other pros/cons I have not considered but it seems relatively straight forward. I'm thinking the new content app/service would be named: pulp-content. Thoughts? </body> </html>