How do we feel about setting a default for the column in the DB schema? The
routing name can be any arbitrary hostname (without periods) after this support
is added, and if someone doesn’t like the default we choose, they can always
provide/update their own routing_name via the UI/API.
--Rawlin
On 8/15/17, 8:42 AM, "Robert Butts" <robert.o.bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
A new requirement is a breaking change, needs to be a new major version, or
a default value that doesn't break existing usage.
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Dewayne Richardson <dewr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This is a tough one because the obvious ways of breaking an API are "URL
> format changes", "Request or Response format changes", etc. But I think
> the more obvious way to think about the API is, do the clients have to
> change their code? If the answer is yes, it's a breaking API change.
>
> So, really the only way around this is to "default" the new field's value
> and make it optional, otherwise the API needs to rev.
>
> -Dew
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you can add a new not null column to the ds table because
> > that would break the DS api. For example, on DS create/update you are
> > saying routing_name is now required, right? This is an API breaking
> change
> > that would require a new version of the API, no?
> >
> > Hence my suggestion for a default. But, yes, i forgot about the per CDN
> > thing.
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Peters, Rawlin <
> rawlin_pet...@comcast.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jeremy’s suggestion could work, but the param would probably be
created
> > in
> > > a TR_PROFILE per-CDN. However, that still wouldn’t fix the visibility
> > > problem. If a CDN isn’t using the default “tr” HTTP routing name,
> > operators
> > > would still need to know that there is a new profile parameter that
> needs
> > > updating post-upgrade but before a snap/queue. So either way there
> needs
> > to
> > > be sufficient upgrade notes, but personally I still prefer keeping the
> > > routing_name column non-null.
> > >
> > > That said, this is my current proposal for the DB migration which also
> > > gets us past the upgrade issue:
> > > 1. Add a routing_name column to the DeliveryService table.
> > > 2. Update the routing_name for DNS Delivery Services to “edge”.
> > > 3. Update the routing_name of non-DNS Delivery Services to the value
> of a
> > > temporary upgrade parameter associated with the Delivery Service’s CDN
> > (if
> > > the upgrade parameter doesn’t exist, the routing_names will remain
> null).
> > > 4. Update the remaining null routing_names to “tr”.
> > > 5. Make the routing_name column non-null and add a non-empty
> constraint.
> > >
> > > So these would be an operator’s pre-upgrade steps:
> > > 1. Verify if a custom http.routing.name has been configured for
> Traffic
> > > Routers in their CDNs.
> > > 2. If custom http.routing.name, do the following. Otherwise, no
> > > pre-upgrade steps needed (for per-DS routing names at least):
> > > a. create a parameter named “upgrade_http_routing_name” with the
> > value
> > > of the target CDN’s custom http.routing.name
> > > b. associate this parameter to the TR_PROFILE belonging to the
> target
> > > CDN
> > > c. repeat steps 2a and 2b for each CDN using a custom
> > > http.routing.name
> > >
> > > This would keep everything working the same post-upgrade as it did
> > > pre-upgrade, and from that point on you’d be able to change a Delivery
> > > Service’s routing name to any arbitrary hostname (without periods).
> > >
> > > --Rawlin
> > >
> > > On 8/14/17, 4:22 PM, "Dave Neuman" <neu...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think that solves the issue Rawlin was describing. The
> issue
> > > that
> > > Rawlin was describing is that someone has already defined a
> different
> > > routing name in traffic_router/http.properties which is no longer
> > > going to
> > > be used after the upgrade. The upgrade needs to somehow know
about
> > > this
> > > other routing name and use that when it creates the database
column
> > and
> > > populates it with the pre-defined defaults (edge, tr).
> > >
> > > Also, creating a global param doesn't help those with more than 1
> > CDN.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <
> > > mitchell...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Adding a temp parameter would work but I worry that someone
won't
> > > read the
> > > > upgrade documentation and forget to create this temporary
> parameter
> > > before
> > > > running the upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > Here's another option.
> > > >
> > > > Create 2 global TO parameters (http.routing.name and
> > > dns.routing.name
> > > > <http://http.routing.name/>) that default to tr and edge
> > > respectively and
> > > > make the ds.routing_name an optional field.
> > > >
> > > > in seeds.sql
> > > >
> > > > insert into parameter (name, config_file, value) values ('
> > > > http.routing.name',
> > > > 'global', 'tr') ON CONFLICT (name, config_file, value) DO
> NOTHING;
> > > > insert into parameter (name, config_file, value) values ('
> > > dns.routing.name
> > > > ',
> > > > 'global', 'edge') ON CONFLICT (name, config_file, value) DO
> > NOTHING;
> > > >
> > > > in code (warning. ugly pseudo code to follow):
> > > >
> > > > function getRoutingName(ds) {
> > > > return ds.routing_name if not null
> > > > if (ds.type = HTTP) {
> > > > return parameter.http.routing.name
> > > > } else
> > > > return parameter.dns.routing.name
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Just my 2 cents.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Good info Rawlin.
> > > > > My vote would be for a parameter to be used during the
upgrade.
> > > We can
> > > > set
> > > > > a param called `upgrade_routing_name` or something similiar so
> > > that it is
> > > > > obvious that it is a param used for upgrade only. We should
> also
> > > > document
> > > > > that A) the param needs to be set before upgrade and B) TR
will
> > now
> > > > ignore
> > > > > the setting in the config file. Ideally we would remove the
> > param
> > > from
> > > > the
> > > > > default config and the need for the param in the code.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Peters, Rawlin <
> > > > rawlin_pet...@comcast.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I’ve dug through this a bit more, and defaulting a new
> > > > > > DeliveryService.routing_name
> > > > > > column to ‘tr’ for HTTP delivery services presents an
upgrade
> > > issue if
> > > > a
> > > > > > CDN has
> > > > > > chosen to use a custom “http.routing.name” parameter for the
> > > Traffic
> > > > > > Routers
> > > > > > in that CDN (by editing the http.properties files of the
> > Traffic
> > > > > Routers).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For instance, if “http.routing.name” has been set to “ccr”,
> > the
> > > new
> > > > > > routing name
> > > > > > “tr” will break all of the clients using the old “ccr”
> delivery
> > > service
> > > > > > URL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Basically we need to provide a one-time upgrade step to
allow
> > > CDNs
> > > > using
> > > > > a
> > > > > > custom
> > > > > > “http.routing.name” to default the new routing_name column
> to
> > > that
> > > > value
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > existing HTTP delivery services. What would be the best way
> to
> > > do this?
> > > > > > Some options
> > > > > > might be:
> > > > > > 1. Add a profile parameter to the TR_PROFILE for that CDN.
On
> > > upgrade,
> > > > > > read that
> > > > > > parameter and use it to update the routing_name for
> > existing
> > > HTTP
> > > > > > delivery services.
> > > > > > After upgrade, you can safely remove the profile
> parameter.
> > > > > > 2. Let the upgrade automatically default the routing_name to
> > > ‘tr’ or
> > > > > > ‘edge’. After
> > > > > > upgrading, manually update each HTTP delivery service to
> > use
> > > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > “http.routing.name” in use (we could provide an API
> > > endpoint to
> > > > > “bulk
> > > > > > update” the
> > > > > > routing names for all HTTP delivery services in a CDN).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note this is not an exhaustive list, this is a just a couple
> > > options
> > > > that
> > > > > > have come up in
> > > > > > discussion so far. Feel free to add any more ideas to this
> > list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After the upgrade has been completed, the “http.routing.name
> ”
> > > > parameter
> > > > > > in the
> > > > > > Traffic Router’s “http.properties” file will be ignored
(same
> > > with the
> > > > “
> > > > > > dns.routing.name”
> > > > > > parameter in “dns.properties” which I’m not sure can even be
> > > changed
> > > > > > safely today).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Rawlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 8/4/17, 10:19 AM, "Peters, Rawlin" <
> > rawlin_pet...@comcast.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Dave @JvD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. I think I can get on board with
> > > defaulting
> > > > > > the DS columns to ‘edge’ and ‘tr’. I was thinking the CDN
> > > columns might
> > > > > be
> > > > > > useful if the user just wants to set it CDN-wide and not
> > > individually
> > > > on
> > > > > > each DS, but I guess if we default it as part of the upgrade
> > > migration,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > should also provide an API endpoint to set the routing names
> on
> > > all
> > > > DSes
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a CDN to a single value, thus still providing a “per-CDN”
> > option.
> > > > Would a
> > > > > > “bulk” update also be useful, in case a user wants to update
> a
> > > handful
> > > > of
> > > > > > DSes to the same routing names at once?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @JvD Re: TR_PROFILE vs. DS_PROFILE
> > > > > > The default would come from a TR_PROFILE linked to the
> CDN,
> > > and the
> > > > > > override would come from a DS_PROFILE linked to that
specific
> > > DS. I
> > > > > looked
> > > > > > into those options to cover all my bases, but I think adding
> > > columns to
> > > > > at
> > > > > > least the DS table and not touching profiles at all is the
> > better
> > > > option.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Rawlin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 8/4/17, 8:04 AM, "Jan van Doorn" <j...@knutsel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree with Dave on
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [*DN] we should default the database column to
"edge"
> > > for DNS
> > > > and
> > > > > > "tr" for*
> > > > > > *http. Then we don't have to do the null check.*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we do that, we can make the columns mandatory,
and
> > it
> > > makes
> > > > > > sense
> > > > > > they're not in the DS_PROFILE. Also makes it so we
> > don't
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > have a CDN
> > > > > > wide setting. (and Rawlin, I think you mean to say
> > > DS_PROFILE
> > > > > > rather than
> > > > > > TR_PROFILE type to add the param to if we chose to
do
> > > that?? Or
> > > > > > was it the
> > > > > > default that goes into TR_PROFILE and the override
> into
> > > > > > DS_PROFILE?).
> > > > > > In any case - if we make the columns NOT NULL and
> > > default them
> > > > to
> > > > > > "tr" and
> > > > > > "edge", I'm +1 on columns in the deliveryservice
> table.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > JvD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:12 AM Eric Friedrich
> > (efriedri)
> > > <
> > > > > > efrie...@cisco.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey Rawlin-
> > > > > > > Zhilin has also been working on a very similar
> > > feature
> > > > which
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > proposed on this mailer last month:
> > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> > > > > > 51d7ed1ae65a3697c39edd00236e6f3897da37ef5b24ac452a17cabb@%
> > > > > > 3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> > > > > > 51d7ed1ae65a3697c39edd00236e6f3897da37ef5b24ac452a17cabb@
> > > > > > > <dev.trafficcontrol.apache.org>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you please work him to ensure we don’t
> duplicate
> > > work and
> > > > > > that if both
> > > > > > > solutions are needed they will work together?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Peters, Rawlin <
> > > > > > rawlin_pet...@comcast.com
> > > > > > > <mailto:rawlin_pet...@comcast.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, Outlook converted my numbered list poorly.
> > I’ve
> > > > > corrected
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > numbering (items 1-3) below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 8/3/17, 1:52 PM, "Peters, Rawlin" <
> > > > > rawlin_pet...@comcast.com<
> > > > > > mailto:
> > > > > > > rawlin_pet...@comcast.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’ve been working on adding support for
> > configurable
> > > > per-CDN
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > per-DeliveryService routing names [1] (what are
> > > currently
> > > > > > > hardcoded/defaulted to ‘edge’ and ‘tr’ for DNS and
> > HTTP
> > > > > Delivery
> > > > > > Services,
> > > > > > > respectively), and I have a few things to propose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Add a column to the CDN table for the DNS
> > and
> > > HTTP
> > > > > > routing names.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’ve currently been working off the assumption
> > that
> > > > per-CDN
> > > > > > routing
> > > > > > > names would be configurable by adding ‘
> > > http.routing.name’
> > > > and
> > > > > ‘
> > > > > > > dns.routing.name’ parameters to a profile of type
> > > TR_PROFILE
> > > > > > using the
> > > > > > > ‘CRConfig.json’ config file. To me this seems like
> > bad
> > > UX
> > > > > > because the user
> > > > > > > has to click through multiple steps and fill in
> > > multiple
> > > > fields
> > > > > > in the UI
> > > > > > > just to change the CDN’s routing names. It also
> > > requires
> > > > > joining
> > > > > > a few
> > > > > > > different tables in the DB just to find the
> > parameters
> > > > per-CDN.
> > > > > > For that
> > > > > > > reason, I think it would be better if
> > > ‘dns_routing_name’ and
> > > > > > > ‘http_routing_name’ were added as columns of the
> > ‘cdn’
> > > table,
> > > > > > and changing
> > > > > > > them via the UI would follow the same process as
> > > choosing the
> > > > > > CDN’s domain
> > > > > > > name. Because the routing names would be the
> CDN-wide
> > > > defaults,
> > > > > > the ‘Edit
> > > > > > > CDN’ window feels like the most natural place to
> put
> > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Values for per-DeliveryService routing
> names
> > > could
> > > > > live
> > > > > > in one of
> > > > > > > a couple different areas:
> > > > > > > * New columns in the delivery_service
> table
> > > > > > > * Parameters in a DS Profile
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As the developer, my vote would be for Option A
> > > because it
> > > > > > seems like
> > > > > > > it would lead to cleaner code in Traffic Ops
> because
> > > the
> > > > > routing
> > > > > > names
> > > > > > > would be readily-available when handling a
> > > DeliveryService.
> > > > You
> > > > > > wouldn’t
> > > > > > > have to also fetch its profile then dig through it
> to
> > > find
> > > > the
> > > > > > routing
> > > > > > > names. A downside could be that adding columns to
> an
> > > > > > already-overcrowded
> > > > > > > table isn’t ideal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Option B is less appealing to me but might have
> > some
> > > > > > advantages such as
> > > > > > > keeping the number of columns down in the
> > > DeliveryService
> > > > > table.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > DS Profiles currently seem to be geared more
> towards
> > > the
> > > > > > Multi-site Origin
> > > > > > > feature in generating specific ATS configuration
> > > > > (parent.config)
> > > > > > and less
> > > > > > > towards a “junk drawer for optional config”. As
the
> > > routing
> > > > > > names would
> > > > > > > affect the entire DS and multiple config files, it
> > > doesn’t
> > > > seem
> > > > > > right to
> > > > > > > have it as a profile parameter using
> ‘CRConfig.json’
> > > as the
> > > > > > config file. I
> > > > > > > wasn’t around when DS Profiles were introduced, so
> if
> > > you are
> > > > > > more familiar
> > > > > > > with their purpose/origin and think this is a good
> > fit
> > > for
> > > > > them,
> > > > > > I’d like
> > > > > > > to hear your advice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. If per-DeliveryService routing names are
> not
> > > set
> > > > > > explicitly for a
> > > > > > > DS (i.e. the column is null), then the DS will use
> > the
> > > > per-CDN
> > > > > > routing
> > > > > > > names as a default. If the per-CDN routing names
> are
> > > unset,
> > > > > they
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > default to the current values of ‘edge’ and ‘tr’.
> So
> > > the
> > > > lookup
> > > > > > hierarchy
> > > > > > > would be DS.routing_names -> CDN.routing_names ->
> > > default
> > > > > > ‘edge/tr’.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’d like to know what you think of these
> > proposals,
> > > and
> > > > any
> > > > > > > advice/feedback is welcome.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Rawlin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/TC-287
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
