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

Allow Envoy gRPC access log service to be dynamically configured #3660

Closed
bplotnick opened this issue Jun 19, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Allow Envoy gRPC access log service to be dynamically configured #3660

bplotnick opened this issue Jun 19, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels
question Questions that are neither investigations, bugs, nor enhancements

Comments

@bplotnick
Copy link
Contributor

Title: Allow gRPC access log service to be dynamically configured

Description:
Currently, the gRPC ALS cluster is required to be a static resource. This is because config.accesslog.v2.CommonGrpcAccessLogConfig.grpc_service is of type core.GrpcService and core.GrpcService.EnvoyGrpc is required to have a cluster_name that points to a static cluster.

Is there a compelling reason for the ALS cluster to be a static cluster. Perhaps this makes sense for core.ApiConfigSource, which is the main user of core.GrpcService, and was just brought along for the ride when ALS was added?

@mattklein123
Copy link
Member

The reasoning here is the same that ultimately lead to #2966 for ext_auth. Basically, IMO, allowing the logging cluster to come and go can lead to more brittle configs, since in many cases it makes no sense for the logging cluster to be removed. I'm strongly against generically allowing this for all grpc_services, but if people want a generic option we can do that.

@mattklein123 mattklein123 added the question Questions that are neither investigations, bugs, nor enhancements label Jun 19, 2018
@bplotnick
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the reference! In reading the related issues, I realized that this concern is actually not relevant for my use-case. For some reason I thought the endpoints had to be static as well 🤦‍♂️

For the general case, i don't fully understand the factors at play. I assume #2762 is the center of discussion for this, so I'll close this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Questions that are neither investigations, bugs, nor enhancements
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants