Drop `tree.service` config parameter #246

New issue

Closed

opened 2025-12-28 17:36:42 +00:00 by sami · 3 comments

sami commented

2025-12-28 17:36:42 +00:00

Owner

Originally created by @KirillovDenis on GitHub (Jun 6, 2022).

Currently, the tree service in node listens the same port as the object service so we can drop the tree.service config param.

But we have to think about something like a pool for tree-service clients in s3. To start we can use the first node endpoint from the peers config section

Originally created by @KirillovDenis on GitHub (Jun 6, 2022). Currently, the `tree` service in node listens the same port as the `object` service so we can drop the `tree.service` config param. But we have to think about something like a pool for `tree-service` clients in s3. To start we can use the first node endpoint from the `peers` config section

sami

2025-12-28 17:36:42 +00:00

closed this issue
added the
U4

blocked

tree-service

S3

I3

config
labels

sami commented

2025-12-28 17:36:43 +00:00

Author

Owner

@alexvanin commented on GitHub (Jun 6, 2022):

I expect that tree-service will be a part of NeoFS API one day, then it will be a part of the SDK Client and SDK Pool, so the issue will be solved. Until then, I think manual tree service endpoint specification is better than having random picking from the list of pool endpoints.

@alexvanin commented on GitHub (Jun 6, 2022): I expect that `tree-service` will be a part of NeoFS API one day, then it will be a part of the `SDK Client` and `SDK Pool`, so the issue will be solved. Until then, I think manual tree service endpoint specification is better than having random picking from the list of pool endpoints.

sami commented

2025-12-28 17:36:43 +00:00

Author

Owner

@alexvanin commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2022):

Blocked by SDK adoption.

@alexvanin commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2022): Blocked by SDK adoption.

sami commented

2025-12-28 17:36:43 +00:00

Author

Owner

@roman-khimov commented on GitHub (Dec 26, 2024):

It will be dropped, but in a bit different manner, along with the whole tree service. This specific issue is irrelevant.

@roman-khimov commented on GitHub (Dec 26, 2024): It will be dropped, but in a bit different manner, along with the whole tree service. This specific issue is irrelevant.