[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFWIP-198?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin....
]
Martin Choma edited comment on WFWIP-198 at 9/16/19 2:39 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------
So if I understand you correctly you are saying your preference is 2. Problem is EAP7-1192
wont permit turn off operator for people using transaction.
So when user find himself in situation he need option which Operator does not expose, he
will raise RFE and wait couple of months to be delivered. I assume over a time customers
will come with request to expose nearly all internal Kubernetes objects options. Which
will mean Operator will expose all options, but that will be in your words "disaster
from a usability and maintenance point of view". And I agree.
From my point of view best would be to decoupled EAP7-1192 (and any
other future feature) from operator codebase. So user can turn off operator without
loosing any EAP capability. And keep small set of most useful options for operator.
"we need to make sure that the Operator is able to do all the things that we
currently support" Now the question is how we define "we".
- Is it just what EAP document and test?
- Or also what OpenShift document and test?
For example EAP do not document neither test pod.spec.imagePullSecrets option. It is
documented by OpenShift documentation so supported by RedHat. So should we add this option
to Operator in this stage?
[1]
https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.11/rest_api/api/v1.Pod.html
was (Author: mchoma):
So if I understand you correctly you are saying your preference is 2. Problem is EAP7-1192
wont permit turn off operator for people using transaction.
So when user find himself in situation he need option which Operator does not expose, he
will raise RFE and wait couple of months to be delivered. I assume over a time customers
will come with request to expose nearly all internal Kubernetes objects options. Which
will mean Operator will expose all options, but that will be in your words "disaster
from a usability and maintenance point of view". And I agree.
From my point of view best would be to decoupled EAP7-1192 (and any
other future feature) from operator codebase. So user can turn off operator without
loosing any EAP capability. And keep small set of most useful options for operator.
"we need to make sure that the Operator is able to do all the things that we
currently support" Now the question is how we define "we".
- Is it just what EAP document and test?
- Or also what OpenShift document and test?
For example EAP do not document neither test pod.spec.imagePullSecrets option. It is
documented by OpenShift documentation so supported by RedHat. So should we add this option
to Operator in this stage?
[1]
https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/3.11/rest_api/api/v1.Pod.html
Operator long-term strategy
---------------------------
Key: WFWIP-198
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFWIP-198
Project: WildFly WIP
Issue Type: Bug
Components: OpenShift
Reporter: Martin Choma
Assignee: Jeff Mesnil
Priority: Blocker
Facts:
# Operator creates and manges internaly several kubernetes objects; StatefulSet, Pod,
Service, Routes. By rough estimation these kubernetes objects expose approximately 50
options[2]. Operator now expose approximately 10 options [1].
# EAP7-1192 is currently designed in way operator is integral part of solution. You can
not turn off operator to EAP7-1192 properly work.
# User cant touch internal Kubernetes objects. Operator manages them and can overwrite
changes anytime.
So given these facts question is what is long-term strategy with Operator?
# Operator will provide all options of internal objects. Everything I am able to
configure directly with Kubernetes objects I will be able to configure with Operator
# Operator will expose just most useful options. If user wants to make something special
he has to "turn off" operator and to be on his own. (Loosing transaction support
provided by EAP7-1192)
# Operator will expose just most useful options. If user wants to make something special
he can and Operator won't overwritten his changes. (I dont know if it is feasible?)
[1]
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-operator/blob/master/doc/apis.adoc#wil...
[2]
https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/generated/kubernetes-api/v1.15/#pods...
https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/generated/kubernetes-api/v1.15/#stat...
https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/generated/kubernetes-api/v1.15/#serv...
https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/generated/kubernetes-api/v1.15/#ingr...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.5#713005)