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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
router: scoped rds (2a): scoped routing configuration protos #6675
router: scoped rds (2a): scoped routing configuration protos #6675
Changes from all commits
fc2da90
90ec8eb
bd149b0
ab12667
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 whether this message should be in the same file as the related HCM protos? Is there any compelling reason to split them like this? It seems like they are very closely related? Don't have a strong opinion on this but putting all of the required definitions together in an
srds.proto
might make this complicated feature easier to grok? WDYT?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.
My intent is to maintain consistency by having the xDS API "top-level" proto specification under
api/envoy/api/v2
.I found it more readable to have the
ScopedRoutes
proto defined in thehttp_connection_manager.proto
along its consumer rather than pairing it with theScopedRouteConfiguration
proto here. However, this may just be my bias being the implementor so I can certainly consolidate the protos into srds.proto if that is more approachable for those with less context.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.
@htuch thoughts here? My preference is to keep them together for readability, but I don't feel strongly about it if others do.
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 think the split is reasonable to me, given how the service and the builder are used. I think it might even warrant moving to a separate peer proto alongside HCM config (but same package namespace) as it's self-contained, but we can do that optionally in a followup.