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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Refactor Client.lb_policy into it's own filter #103

Closed
markmandel opened this issue Sep 11, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Refactor Client.lb_policy into it's own filter #103

markmandel opened this issue Sep 11, 2020 · 3 comments
Labels
area/user-experience Pertaining to developers trying to use Quilkin, e.g. cli interface, configuration, etc kind/cleanup Refactoring code, fixing up documentation, etc

Comments

@markmandel
Copy link
Contributor

  1. It sounds like we are in agreement that lb_policy should become a filter - which I think makes sense, and makes it easier for the end user to reconcile what is happening, as they only need to worry about the concept of "filters" not "filters" and "load balancers" and how they interact. If that's the case - let's write up a ticket, so we can get that work done.

Originally posted by @markmandel in #98 (comment)

To explain again - we should remove lb_policy from the Client proxy configuration, and RANDOM and ROUND_ROBIN should become a Filter that can be applied for this functionality (Broadcast goes away, since that will be the default for both Client and Server implementations)

Question:
Should we have two filters, one for RANDOM and one for ROUND_ROBIN? Or should we have a LoadBalancer filter, with a "policy" configuration option, that takes one of these values as the config option?
@markmandel markmandel added area/user-experience Pertaining to developers trying to use Quilkin, e.g. cli interface, configuration, etc kind/cleanup Refactoring code, fixing up documentation, etc labels Sep 11, 2020
@iffyio
Copy link
Collaborator

iffyio commented Sep 15, 2020

Should we have two filters, one for RANDOM and one for ROUND_ROBIN? Or should we have a LoadBalancer filter, with a "policy" configuration option, that takes one of these values as the config option?

I'd say it's probably safer to have a single filter with configurable policies

@markmandel
Copy link
Contributor Author

SGTM!

iffyio added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 31, 2020
@iffyio
Make LoadBalancer a filter
1386f85 
Moves the global load balancer to its own filter.
Removes BROADCAST lb policy from the filter since it is redundant
(its the same as not having the filter).

Work on #103
@iffyio iffyio mentioned this issue Oct 31, 2020
Merged
markmandel added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 7, 2020
@iffyio @markmandel
Make LoadBalancer a filter (#125)
9150220 
* Make LoadBalancer a filter

Moves the global load balancer to its own filter.
Removes BROADCAST lb policy from the filter since it is redundant
(its the same as not having the filter).

Work on #103

* Update client examples

Co-authored-by: Mark Mandel <[email protected]>
@iffyio
Copy link
Collaborator

iffyio commented Nov 7, 2020

closed via #125

@iffyio iffyio closed this as completed Nov 7, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/user-experience Pertaining to developers trying to use Quilkin, e.g. cli interface, configuration, etc kind/cleanup Refactoring code, fixing up documentation, etc
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@markmandel @iffyio