-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
Shipping with an embedded GW API provider #18
Draft
alexsnaps
wants to merge
2
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
envoy-gw
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ | ||
| # RFC Template | ||
|
|
||
| - Feature Name: envoy-gw | ||
| - Start Date: 2023-07-07 | ||
| - RFC PR: [Kuadrant/architecture#0000](https://github.com/Kuadrant/architecture/pull/0000) | ||
| - Issue tracking: [Kuadrant/architecture#0000](https://github.com/Kuadrant/architecture/issues/0000) | ||
|
|
||
| # Summary | ||
| [summary]: #summary | ||
|
|
||
| Provide (different?) deployment for Kuadrant, either with a default Gateway API provider or a pluggeable | ||
| backend. The proposal is to provide users a battery included experience, when getting started with | ||
| Kuadrant while not yet having a (supported) Gateway API provider installed on their cluster. | ||
|
|
||
| # Motivation | ||
| [motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
|
||
| Currently, Kuadrant comes with no batteries included, i.e. no Gateway API provider. This leaves it up to | ||
| the user to get it installed on their cluster (at least until the API becomes widely adopted and maybe is | ||
| present by default). This creates unnecessary friction for people wanting to reap the benefits provided | ||
| by the Kuadrant APIs. This proposal aims at addressing that unnecessary friction. The proposal is about | ||
| lowering the bar to entry for users to test drive and eventually deploy Kuadrant to their new or existing | ||
| clusters… | ||
|
|
||
| # Guide-level explanation | ||
| [guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation | ||
|
|
||
| If a user, which is probably most users today, gets started with the Gateway API because of Kuadrant, | ||
| they would merely install a Kuadrant Operator that makes sure of installing all dependencies (either | ||
| because of the operator they install, the `Kuadrant` CR they deploy or sane defaults the operator would | ||
| apply), including the Gateway API and its provider. That provider would be _Envoy Gateway_, as it is | ||
| engineered to address this very usecase. | ||
|
|
||
| For users that already may have a provider installed, e.g. Istio or OSSM, Kuadrant is able to plug itself | ||
| in seamlessly in such environments. Simply deploying the Operator as you'd do currently, would result in | ||
| the Kuadrant taking the necessary steps to wire its funcitonality within the existing deployments. | ||
|
|
||
| # Reference-level explanation | ||
| [reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation | ||
|
|
||
| Doing so entails a few things: | ||
|
|
||
| - [ ] Get an _Envoy Gateway_ distribution ready to back Kuadrant use cases | ||
| - including _howtos_ on how to "chain" existing ingress'es with gateway resources | ||
| - [ ] Abstract the Gateway Provider behind an [Service Provider interface (SPI)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_provider_interface), to support at least Envoy GW, Istio & OSSM. | ||
| - which makes for a clear contract any other Gateway API provider would be able to implement | ||
| - [ ] Package different distributions (at the very least GW API included, or pluggeable) as different Operators/images? | ||
|
|
||
| This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detail that: | ||
|
|
||
| - Its interaction with other features is clear. | ||
| - It is reasonably clear how the feature would be implemented. | ||
| - How error would be reported to the users. | ||
| - Corner cases are dissected by example. | ||
|
|
||
| The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work. | ||
|
|
||
| # Drawbacks | ||
| [drawbacks]: #drawbacks | ||
|
|
||
| Why should we *not* do this? | ||
|
|
||
| # Rationale and alternatives | ||
| [rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives | ||
|
|
||
| - Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs? | ||
| - What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them? | ||
| - What is the impact of not doing this? | ||
|
|
||
| # Prior art | ||
| [prior-art]: #prior-art | ||
|
|
||
| Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. | ||
| A few examples of what this can include are: | ||
|
|
||
| - Does another project have a similar feature? | ||
| - What can be learned from it? What's good? What's less optimal? | ||
| - Papers: Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? If you have some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical background. | ||
|
|
||
| This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other tentatives - successful or not, provide readers of your RFC with a fuller picture. | ||
|
|
||
| Note that while precedent set by other projects is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC. | ||
|
|
||
| # Unresolved questions | ||
| [unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
|
||
| - What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged? | ||
| - What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization? | ||
| - What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC? | ||
|
|
||
| # Future possibilities | ||
| [future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities | ||
|
|
||
| Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be and how it would affect the platform and project as a whole. Try to use this section as a tool to further consider all possible interactions with the project and its components in your proposal. Also consider how this all fits into the roadmap for the project and of the relevant sub-team. | ||
|
|
||
| This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the RFC you are writing but otherwise related. | ||
|
|
||
| Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section is not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be in the section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs. The section merely provides additional information. | ||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
so would the idea here be to support go plugins https://pkg.go.dev/plugin and have the provider configured at install time a loaded at dynamically? Would our default impl also be plugins or just packaged as part of the operator?
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.
on another note I haven't ever used a go plugin but in theory sounds like it would work for this use case. That said I think we could provide an interface and default implmentations without plugins (IE like a provide factory) that returns the right impl based on config and then add support for loading a plugin at a later stage? Not sure if we want to do plugins for all implementations?
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 say that'd depend on "how big" these become… And how we'd even plug the default Gateway API provider (i.e. probably Envoy Gateway) in. I think, from a end-user's perspective, I'd lean towards one single operator image that just "does the right" thing. No Gateway API present? Go fetch and install our default provider; Or, we;re in an OSSM environment? Loads the appropriate SPI (possibly using the go plugin - which I guess are effectively a
dlopen(3)kinda thing; or "just" using a factory indirection; or whichever…) and it all works.I'll look into go plugins, but at this stage I mostly care about the definition of the contract between Kuadrant and these providers, to be defined in this/these SPI(s). And if we can then also easily accept contribution to support "yet another Gateway API provider", then great! If that is more complicated, supporting go plugins would be another way to decouple Kuadrant from the providers, all the way to the runtime, creating an even more open architecture for these extensions.