including aerogear-dev

On 13 December 2017 at 08:55, Craig Brookes <cbrookes@redhat.com> wrote:

Hey guys,

tldr

- Use a combination of configmaps and secrets to store public (ie client config) vs secret (ie credentials) when provisioning services via an APB

- Use proposals for these kind of changes (ie where they are larger changes, breaking changes or changes in technical direction that have cross cutting concerns.)

- As we have many pieces, setup aerogear/proposals repo.

I would like to suggest that we  make use of a mixture of configmap and secrets during the provision of a mobile "aware" service.

Currently when we provision a service we must also create a secret with a label: mobile:enabled and at least two pieces of information:

- uri

- name

but it often contains more (such as username and password etc)

This secret is used by the UI to represent that the service is present in the namespace and to display the credential information that allows the developer to sign into the service.

During the PoC this secret was also used to populate the mobile client config. This meant filtering out fields that we did not want the mobile client to have access to.

My suggestion is that we move to using an additional configmap labeled "mobile:enabled" that contains the public information that can be exposed to the mobile client as configuration and a secret still labeled "mobile:enabled" to capture other information such as the credentials for logging into the service.

1. Use secrets for things which are actually secret like API keys, credentials, etc
2. Use config map for not-secret configuration data

 This really amounts to a proposal. Which brings me to the second question. Where to keep proposals? I would like us to standardise on have a public record of technical changes. These proposals should capture the following:

1) What

2) Why

3) How

As an example here is a proposal that I put together for the ansible service broker:

https://github.com/openshift/ansible-service-broker/blob/master/docs/proposals/last-operation-description.md

This shows the kind of level of detail that I believe we should be capturing.

When is a proposal necessary? In my experience they are often used for larger changes, breaking changes or changes in technical direction that have cross cutting concerns. So in the case of my change outlined above, it is a breaking change that both the CLI and UI need to be aware of along with the developers of service APBs and so it should be a proposal.

In the ansible service broker case the proposal is kept in the docs dir of the repo, however for something larger like Kubernetes they have a separate repo https://github.com/kubernetes/community. 

We could do something similar: aerogear/proposals with directories for each area 

- core

   - ui

   - cli

   - ide-extenstions

- services

  - apbs

  - push

  - sync

...

I think this would allow the owner or gatekeeper of the proposal to be clearly identified.

Interested in hearing thoughts and opinions

--

Craig Brookes

RHMAP 

@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
feedhenry-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev

--

David Martin

Red Hat Mobile

Twitter: @irldavem

IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
feedhenry-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev