openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From japhar81 <japha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Pluggable API Gateways
Date Sat, 11 Aug 2018 01:25:35 GMT
I was in the midst of doing that, but the immediate snag is travis -- it
doesn't support a separate travis.yml per subdirectory (
https://github.com/travis-ci/travis-ci/issues/3540) and the mess it created
to try and matrix subdirectories and languages is just a huge fail. For
instance, my current hack of traefik is a node.js app, adding that in made
the config so unreadable I couldn't PR it with a clean conscience. Add a
few more gateways in a few more languages, and it'll be an unmaintainable
mess..

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:21 PM Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote:

> What about subdirectories instead of repos? I admit not having thought too
> deeply about this yet but I find that we have too many repos and generally
> makes things harder to work across many components.
>
> -r
>
> > On Aug 10, 2018, at 9:17 PM, japhar81 <japhar81@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > As I started poking at incubator-openwhisk-apigateway, it may be
> preferable
> > to make this a repo that just holds documentation and ansible scripts,
> and
> > each apigateway is a submodule. For instance the current gateway would
> move
> > to incubator-openwhisk-apigateway-openresty or something along those
> lines.
> > Then we could add incubator-openwhisk-apigateway-traefik, etc. This would
> > mean easier maintenance, simpler travis configs, etc. I see lots of
> upside
> > and no real downside. Obviously I don't have rights to do this myself,
> but
> > Id be curious if you folks agree, and if someone with enough github
> rights
> > might be willing to help me get it done..
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:24 PM japhar81 <japhar81@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I completely agree, it's model is a bit rigid -- I'm happy to take on
> that
> >> work as well, though it might take me a bit, I've just started playing
> with
> >> golang. Regardless, I do think it should come as a follow-on effort,
> with
> >> the current model being the first plugin we build -- which will
> >> coincidentally work against at least the current gateway and the traefik
> >> one I'm trying to implement.
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:21 PM Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My point about the cli is that current implementation is unnecessarily
> >>> opinionated and while you can work with it, it’s just not necessary to
> have
> >>> to fit into its current model. I opened several issues to try to
> address
> >>> these shortcomings. It is absolutely true that this can be viewed
> >>> separately from consolidating the route management package with its
> >>> gateway.
> >>>
> >>> -r
> >>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message