-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 321
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
feat: add v2 endpoints controller #2883
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 wonder if we technically need to include prefixes with some of these protocols. I was reading the API docs for appProtocol and it mentions only IANA names can be unprefixed. Only my first time seeing this so I could be mistaken.
I also think an annotation on the service or pod might be easier for customers to support. e.g. the Bitnami Postgres helmchart exposes annotations for services and certain pods but not a change of appProtocol.
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.
Yeah, I was wondering the same - we may need to iterate on this part. FWIW, Istio's solution (
appProtocol
and detection via port name) use unprefixed values from what I can see, and Open Service Mesh also includes non-standardtcp
andgRPC
. I wonder whether the intent in k8s docs was valid Service Name Syntax rather than a registered name - that seems arbitrarily limiting for new protocols, to me, when the purpose appears to be open-ended extension.Agreed, it seems like annotations could help ease operator pain here rather than plumbing
appProtocol
through templates - though maybe better for us to enforce "standard" k8s concepts and push that concern up the tooling chain rather than accommodate it ourselves? I can start a 🧵 in the multi-port channel and see whether a follow-up makes sense.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.
Added this as a bullet in follow-up ticket so we don't lose track but probably don't need to figure out right this second.
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.
Circling back to this one to tie up the loose end: @ishustava, do you happen to have perspective on either of Dan's questions above?
My gut is to leave the unprefixed protocols in place for now since there seems to be precedent in other meshes, and wait to see if we need annotations in addition to just
appProtocol
. If that's not ideal, we can fix now or plan to follow up in 1.18.