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

server api without linearization #443

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 8, 2021

Conversation

fxposter
Copy link
Contributor

This is the rebased version of #376.

@kyessenov @jessicayuen @snowp @alecholmez

@fxposter
Copy link
Contributor Author

This will conflict with #438

@fxposter
Copy link
Contributor Author

For those who does not want to dig deep into all previous issues: this changes the API between cache and server packages to allow to maintain the order of responses of different types from the cache side.
Basically, when you do ADS and send many changes to the client at once for different types - you lose their ordering, ie: listeners should go before routes, but if your cache implementation sends both listeners and routes - you end up in large select statement, and select statement basically lose order of the changes that you sent to different channels. So the idea is to be able to unify those channels and simplify implementation (subject to future PRs, which would mane #438 not needed as well).

@fxposter
Copy link
Contributor Author

I was pretty busy last 2 months, but previously it was tested and just needed to rebase to merge: #376 (comment). Since there were many changes since then - maybe we should do another round of tests, but from code perspective - nothing significant has changed since previous PR.

@alecholmez alecholmez self-requested a review June 7, 2021 18:01
Copy link
Contributor

@alecholmez alecholmez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks great, I won't stand in the way since this was already good to merge previously.

No worries on the conflict we aren't sure if we want to go that route (waiting on some benchmarks first) so I can just address that when I need to.

I'll probably open a PR that follows this for Incremental soon, it would be helpful if you could put your eyes on that when it's opened to make sure I don't miss anything.

@alecholmez alecholmez changed the title [WIP] server api without linearization server api without linearization Jun 7, 2021
@alecholmez alecholmez merged commit 50f8c74 into envoyproxy:main Jun 8, 2021
alecholmez pushed a commit to alecholmez/go-control-plane that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2021
alecholmez pushed a commit to alecholmez/go-control-plane that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2021
alecholmez pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2021
@fxposter fxposter mentioned this pull request Jul 6, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants