-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
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
JEP for specifying the connectionfile #106
JEP for specifying the connectionfile #106
Conversation
@jupyter/software-steering-council kind ping on this one, similar to #105 |
I propose we move this to a voting phase. This has been open for nearly a year, so I think we can safely close the comment period. Now that the jupyter/schema repo is moving forward, this seems like a good time to proceed. |
"description": "ip of the machine where the kernel runs" | ||
}, | ||
"shell_port": { | ||
"type": ["integer","string"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it worth using oneOf to distinguish tcp with integer ports from ipc/inproc where it's really a string suffix (that I believe implementation-wise accepts integers)? Essentially, signal that tcp doesn't accept strings for ports.
Fine if that's more schema complexity that folks want.
}, | ||
"kernel_network": { | ||
"type": "object", | ||
"required": ["transport", "ip", "shell_port", "control_port", "stdin_port", "hb_port", "iopub_port"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I realize I'm late to this discussion, but I just want to understand it fully before voting: Is the spec as proposed now consistent with https://github.com/jupyter/enhancement-proposals/pull/66/files ? If not, how would the schema evolve to support that? Would these fields no longer be required?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok. My main point was to do a sanity check on whether #66 would require any changes that the spec as it currently is would make harder to implement. It sounds like that isn't a concern, so I voted for.
The JEP has been approved unanimously.
Merging |
Connection file JSON schema
This proposes to specify the connection file through a JSON schema, and have the specification and documentation live in a dedicated repo.
The JSON schema is joined as a standalone file.
I(s been a while since we proposed to move to the voting phase, let's fix it now ;) Ntice that further JSON specs should not been JEPs, but PRs to https://github.com/jupyter/schema
Voting from @jupyter/software-steering-council