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

okta: add configuration options to allow users to make use of httpjson keep-alive options #4844

Closed
efd6 opened this issue Dec 15, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #5487
Closed
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@efd6
Copy link
Contributor

efd6 commented Dec 15, 2022

elastic/beats#34014 will be adding configuration options to httpjson to allow users to specify the behaviour of http keep-alives. This configuration should be made available to integrations that make use of httpjson to perform API requests. A customer has requested that the okta package provide this option to reduce API limit impacts due to the current behaviour that does not allow keep-alives.

Depends: elastic/beats#34014
Depends: elastic/beats#34299
Depends: elastic/beats#34743

@elasticmachine
Copy link

Pinging @elastic/security-external-integrations (Team:Security-External Integrations)

@efd6 efd6 self-assigned this Mar 8, 2023
@andrewkroh
Copy link
Member

I think we should make HTTP keepalives enabled in our integrations. That's the optimal behavior IMO. I know that with the httpjson input we did not want to change the behavior because we didn't know who/what would be affected, but with Okta (and other httpjson based integrations) we know how it's being used and we want to optimize the OOTB experience.

@efd6
Copy link
Contributor Author

efd6 commented Mar 9, 2023

Are we never going to be in a situation where resource constraints make this problematic? Would a default enabled be OK or do you specifically want it always enabled?

@andrewkroh
Copy link
Member

andrewkroh commented Mar 9, 2023

I was thinking keep-alives on by default, but still toggle-able. I will follow suit with whatever we agree upon in #5483 too.

@efd6
Copy link
Contributor Author

efd6 commented Mar 9, 2023

No worries, I'll invert the default that I have.

@efd6 efd6 closed this as completed in #5487 Mar 9, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants