[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-26915?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17532727#comment-17532727
]
Gyula Fora commented on FLINK-26915:
------------------------------------
Not sure if we want to still implement this, but I would propose to not return
UpdateControl/DeleteControl objects directly.
There is some logic around this and the status should be enough to compute the
required return object.
> Extend the Reconciler and Observer interface
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-26915
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-26915
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Kubernetes Operator
> Reporter: Aitozi
> Assignee: Aitozi
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: kubernetes-operator-1.0.0
>
>
> As discussed in
> [comments|https://github.com/apache/flink-kubernetes-operator/pull/112#discussion_r835762111],
> I proposed make two changes to the Reconciler and Observer
> # directly return the UpdateControl from the reconciler, because the
> reconciler can in charge of the Update behavior, By this, we dont have to
> infer the update control in the controller
> # Make the params generic and extends from the ReconcilerContext and
> ObserverContext. which will be easy for different controller to ship their
> own objects for reconcile and observer. For example, in the FlinkSessionJob
> case, we need to get the effective config from the FlinkDeployment first and
> also pass the FlinkDeployment to the reconciler.
> After the change, the reconciler will look like this:
> {code:java}
> public interface Reconciler<CR, CTX extends ReconcilerContext<CR>> {
> UpdateControl<CR> reconcile(CR cr, CTX context) throws Exception;
> DeleteControl cleanup(CR cr, CTX ctx);
> }{code}
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)
