-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 88
Description
Describe the enhancement requested
Hi, I was making some tests for checking the support of proxies with the Flight-SQL JDBC driver.
GRPC supports the JVM properties for indicating the default http proxy to use. Nevertheless, I tested with Flight-SQL JDBC driver without luck. The driver is ignoring them.
I mean these ones:
-Dhttps.proxyHost=<host> -Dhttps.proxyPort=<port>
Checking the reason, I arrived to these lines where the Netty channel is opened:
arrow-java/flight/flight-core/src/main/java/org/apache/arrow/flight/FlightClient.java
Lines 854 to 862 in bd2173c
{ | |
builder = NettyChannelBuilder.forAddress(location.toSocketAddress()); | |
break; | |
} | |
case LocationSchemes.GRPC_DOMAIN_SOCKET: | |
{ | |
// The implementation is platform-specific, so we have to find the classes at runtime | |
builder = NettyChannelBuilder.forAddress(location.toSocketAddress()); | |
try { |
Using method io.grpc.netty.NettyChannelBuilder#forAddress(java.net.SocketAddress)
makes GRPC to create the channel using a direct connection to the host:port
specified at connection uri, ignoring the proxy.
This happens on this code from ManagedChannelImplBuilder
public ManagedChannelImplBuilder(SocketAddress directServerAddress, String authority,
@Nullable ChannelCredentials channelCreds, @Nullable CallCredentials callCreds,
ClientTransportFactoryBuilder clientTransportFactoryBuilder,
@Nullable ChannelBuilderDefaultPortProvider channelBuilderDefaultPortProvider) {
this.target = makeTargetStringForDirectAddress(directServerAddress);
this.channelCredentials = channelCreds;
this.callCredentials = callCreds;
I am not sure if there is a special reason for not opening the connection with the host and port values, instead of the java.net.SocketAddress
:
builder = NettyChannelBuilder.forAddress(
location.getUri().getHost(), location.getUri().getPort());
But opening the channel in the previous way makes GRPC to follow the specified proxy at JVM properties.
-Dhttps.proxyHost=<host> -Dhttps.proxyPort=<port>
Could this be a valid enhancement request?