Re: [PR] fix: Updated route name length το 3 times the default, to cope with Ingress Controller problems [apisix]
csotiriou commented on PR #11822: URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/11822#issuecomment-3128362064 > Hi @csotiriou, any updates? I made the change and pushed it just now. If it was up to me I would push it to 512 just to be on the safe side - since the concatenation made by ingress controller means that you are getting 30% the space you think you do. But at this point I will take what I can get :) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] fix: Updated route name length το 3 times the default, to cope with Ingress Controller problems [apisix]
Baoyuantop commented on PR #11822: URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/11822#issuecomment-3125896433 Hi @csotiriou, any updates? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] fix: Updated route name length το 3 times the default, to cope with Ingress Controller problems [apisix]
membphis commented on PR #11822: URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/11822#issuecomment-3006804692 > Perhaps you could start a discussion to expand the value on all resources. > > Or perhaps the limit could be moved to a configuration file and allow the user to define it at runtime without modifying the code. Personally, I prefer this approach: allowing users to redefine in the configuration file. After all, for most users, a 100-byte name is more than enough. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] fix: Updated route name length το 3 times the default, to cope with Ingress Controller problems [apisix]
Baoyuantop commented on PR #11822: URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/11822#issuecomment-2861499150 cc @moonming @membphis -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] fix: Updated route name length το 3 times the default, to cope with Ingress Controller problems [apisix]
csotiriou commented on PR #11822: URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/11822#issuecomment-2858546227 > Hi @csotiriou, are you still working on this PR? I would like to continue working on this. BUt what is the solution here after all? Should I try and make this value configurable in the schema.lua? I'm wondering if this is possible at all in this file or should I dive deeper in the code to see where it's called. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] fix: Updated route name length το 3 times the default, to cope with Ingress Controller problems [apisix]
Baoyuantop commented on PR #11822: URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/11822#issuecomment-2857251679 Hi @csotiriou, are you still working on this PR? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] fix: Updated route name length το 3 times the default, to cope with Ingress Controller problems [apisix]
Baoyuantop commented on PR #11822: URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/11822#issuecomment-2835494409 > Or perhaps the limit could be moved to a configuration file and allow the user to define it at runtime without modifying the code. LGTM -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] fix: Updated route name length το 3 times the default, to cope with Ingress Controller problems [apisix]
csotiriou commented on PR #11822: URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/11822#issuecomment-2677571602 I agree, on changing the route spec, but I found that this is a central space where all of this is gathered. This value is then picked up by multiple places inside the code. I believe that placing a character limit of 300 by default for all resources like this, and then allowing Helm Charts to change those values during Apisix installation time to be ideal. What would be a good way to achieve this? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] fix: Updated route name length το 3 times the default, to cope with Ingress Controller problems [apisix]
bzp2010 commented on PR #11822: URL: https://github.com/apache/apisix/pull/11822#issuecomment-2676381076 I don't think it's a good idea to just do dirty patches like this on the route spec. If it is ok to extend the limit values, then the same thing should be done for all resources. It's arguable that such a restriction might only be done due to some “inertia” on the part of the API creators to follow what they've done before, which might not really be necessary or justified. The length of the value is meaningless in terms of functionality, and may only affect the speed of etcd synchronization and the amount of memory used by APISIX when large strings are used. Perhaps you could start a discussion to expand the value on all resources. Or perhaps the limit could be moved to a configuration file and allow the user to define it at runtime without modifying the code. What do others think? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
