generated from kubernetes/kubernetes-template-project
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 492
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
HTTPRoute matching should support custom match types #832
Labels
kind/feature
Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
Comments
youngnick
added
the
kind/feature
Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
label
Aug 26, 2021
Merged
This was also suggested by @danwinship in #780 (comment). |
While I understand the motivation here, I think we should refrain from adding this. Here is why:
|
/assign |
hbagdi
added a commit
to hbagdi/service-apis
that referenced
this issue
Sep 3, 2021
ImplementationSpecific is trappy match type: it provides an escape hatch to do more but it doesn't take into account that multiple implementation-specific match types could be possible. Use-cases exist in this area but we have not thought through them deeply. Being conservative and dropping this feature in v1alpha2 to avoid any potential breaking change in future. We may revisit this in future as we gain a better understanding. For kubernetes-sigs#832
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
What would you like to be added:
See the discussion here for more detail (#822 (comment)), but in short:
In GEP-820 (#820 and #822) we are removing the extensionRef in the HTTPRoute matches section. This issue covers work to add something back in that allows implementations to try custom matching of some sort.
@bowei suggested:
Modify
HTTPPathMatch.Type
:acme.io/my-custom-match
). These represent custom match typesExact
,Prefix
,RegularExpression
) stayImplementationSpecific
Why this is needed:
We agreed to go ahead with #822 on the proviso we come back, this is to make sure this doesn't get lost.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: