Add support to the use of JedisSocketFactory using a pool

[mina-asham]

• Support for JedisSocketFactory has already been added to the lowest level Jedis to support adding any custom socket factory (e.g. UDS), this propagates the support in the JedisPool too

[sazzad16]

I'm not 100% about the change in

src/main/java/redis/clients/jedis/JedisSocketFactory.java

I'm leaving this discussion/debate to other reviewers.

[mp911de]

Introducing JedisSocketFactory is a neat idea. However, it raises the question of how addressing should work. Right now, HostAndPort was the only mechanism to obtain a connection. With domain sockets, you need another way to connect to a node. I'd suggest introducing an interface and replace all usages of HostAndPort (breaking change, potentially a 4.0 topic) with that interface. Behind that interface, one can put addressing details so one could e.g. connect to Sentinel using domain sockets (or do other crazy things). You could even have an SSL implementation of JedisSocketFactory that uses SSL details from a SecureHostAndPort.

[mina-asham]

Introducing JedisSocketFactory is a neat idea. However, it raises the question of how addressing should work. Right now, HostAndPort was the only mechanism to obtain a connection. With domain sockets, you need another way to connect to a node. I'd suggest introducing an interface and replace all usages of HostAndPort (breaking change, potentially a 4.0 topic) with that interface. Behind that interface, one can put addressing details so one could e.g. connect to Sentinel using domain sockets (or do other crazy things). You could even have an SSL implementation of JedisSocketFactory that uses SSL details from a SecureHostAndPort.

I think that makes sense, it will be a major overhaul though so I don't think we should block this here, having something that works for 3.x (specially that we already support that in the Jedis class) and then we work on something bigger for 4.x