Some of the proposed changes to the Routing API are backward incompatible.
We don't believe anyone is using it yet, as adoption has generally be
blocked on securing connections to Consul, but we'd like to confirm.

Please raise your hand if you're using the routing API.

Thank you!

Shannon Coen
Product Manager, Cloud Foundry
Pivotal, Inc.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Shannon Coen <scoen(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

We currently have two routing APIs in CF.
1. HTTP Routing API in cf-release:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/routing-api
2. TCP Routing API in cf-routing-release:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/cf-routing-release

The TCP Routing API is quite basic and we want to extend it for high
availability, authentication, etc. However, instead of enhancing the
existing TCP Routing API, we plan to add support for TCP route registration
to the Routing API in cf-release, as it already supports many of the
desired features. We'll get rid of the current API in cf-routing-release
and submodule in the Routing API from cf-release. Eventually we'll move the
Routing API (along with GoRouter and HAProxy) from cf-release into
cf-routing-release and submodule them into cf-release.

This consolidation, along with our not having any API consumer besides
GoRouter yet, gives us the opportunity to consider a common behavior for
routing API endpoints. We welcome your comments in our design doc:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v941oy3Y7RRI80gmLfhPZlaahElK_Q0C3pCQewK8Z3g/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you,

Shannon Coen
Product Manager, Cloud Foundry
Pivotal, Inc.