Add API framework decouple proposal #17
Conversation
Signed-off-by: leonwanghui <wanghui71leon@gmail.com>
|
I really like the idea. I mentioned some spelling nits inline, but otherwise this proposal looks like a great idea to me. |
Signed-off-by: leonwanghui <wanghui71leon@gmail.com>
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message GenericResponse {} | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should have Get and List methods for each resource to check the status of an operation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One question for these methods, since we can check the status of operation through etcd, is there any need to double-check the status by calling the backend?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about adding a QoS parameter into the design like some messaging implementations.
Level 1: no check
Level 2: check backend.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@noelmcloughlin Good suggestion, but actually in the long term we want to redesign a unified model for both controller and dock module.
|
|
||
| ##### Pros | ||
| Decoupling `api-server` from `controller` would make `api-server` much easier to scale out, and therefore improving | ||
| performance when handling heavy workloads. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It does allow api-server to scale out, but I don't think this improves performance as it adds another layer of indirection.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What I mean here is that for heavy workloads, only one api-server will cause the traffic delay for the request, but as for multiple api-server modules all requests will be split and therefore the overall time would be reduced. Does that make sense?
|
Can you add a diagram to show this change? |
| @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ separate PR after the items above are resolved. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Data model impact | |||
|
|
|||
| Because grpc model requires generated from protobuf, so some protobuf files should be added: | |||
| Because grpc model requires generated codee from protobuf, so some protobuf files should be added: | |||
Signed-off-by: leonwanghui <wanghui71leon@gmail.com>
|
@leonwanghui can you address the comments? After that I'll merge this. |
1 similar comment
|
lgtm |
No description provided.