-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 242
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
A89: Backend Service Metric Label #471
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
I changed the link name so I wouldn't have to specify the link name, and then forgot to remove the link name.
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.
5 stars, would read again. :)
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.
Don't forget to wait for the requisite two week comment period before merging, and update "Status:".
This impacts a lot of the language, but I'll fix that up later.
@markdroth, I'd appreciate a quick look at the A75-mentioning commit, just to keep me honest. |
@@ -93,6 +94,14 @@ isn't the best of names, but all other names seemed to be obviously worse (e.g., | |||
cluster) or no better. It is more important that the name not be misunderstood | |||
than for the name to be meaningful. | |||
|
|||
Prior to A75 the only LB policy with a backend service concept is |
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'd prefer the language to be a little stronger here to make sure that we don't accidentally cause more work for implementors.
If this gRFC gets implemented before A75, then the code will have to be moved from the xds_cluster_impl policy to the cds policy anyway in order to implement A91, so it doesn't really matter whether that move is described here or in A91. However, if A75 gets implemented first, then someone could read this without knowing about A91, and they may think that there's no reason not to put it in the xds_cluster_impl policy, which would result in them later having to move it to the cds policy.
To avoid that, I suggest saying something like this:
"""
If this gRFC is implemented prior to A75, then the grpc.lb.backend_service
label will be added in the xds_cluster_impl
policy. However, if A75 is implemented first, then the label will be added in the cds
LB policy instead. This will pave the way for supporting this label on the outlier detection metrics described in A91.
"""
Note that the current text in A91 doesn't say anything about moving this functionality. It just contains the following description for this label:
"""
The backend service to which the traffic is being sent, as described in A89. Note that this label will be supported only if A75 has already been implemented.
"""
No description provided.