According to the description of Service[1] here, I would prefer *keeping the current Name*. Because one service of APISIX here not only includes a group of routes but also has upstream, plugins, etc.
[image: image.png] [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-apisix/blob/master/doc/architecture-design.md#service Best Regards! @ Zhiyuan Ju <https://www.shaoyaoju.org/> zhoujingk_49 <[email protected]> 于2019年10月29日周二 下午4:36写道： > I couldn’t concept your reason as “there is also `service` in Kong”, we’re > ApiSix not Kong. > We should not forgot that the “service” in APISix is just a truly “route > set". We should face the truth. > > > | | > idevz > | > | > [email protected] > | > > Idevz.org > > github.com/idevz > > > > On 10/29/2019 16:32，YuanSheng Wang<[email protected]> wrote： > Hi: > > I thought about it, there is also `service` in Kong, and here we are almost > the same. > > So I prefer to continue using `service`. > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:45 AM zhoujingk_49 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi folks! > > > As we know Apisix is one of an Cloud Native APIGateway, and one of the > most important about Cloud Native is > Does our Apisix is friendly enough with Kubernetes？ > > > We all know “ service" is an important concept in Kubernetes, it's an > abstraction of pods. It's truly about describing a service things, provider > something ability to others. But the “Service” in Apisix, I wandering more > of > A router set than a Service. And a Apisix “service” would make someone > confused when using Apisix in Kubernetes environment. > > > So, what’s your opinion? > > > | | > idevz > | > | > [email protected] > | > > Idevz.org > > github.com/idevz > > > > > > > > -- > > *MembPhis* > My github: https://github.com/membphis > Our Book: OpenResty Best Practices > <https://www.gitbook.com/book/moonbingbing/openresty-best-practices> >
