Thanks for responding Mohamed.

Help me understand what you mean when you refer to opening up the LTM to
developers. NoRouter itself must have access to the LTM to update app pool
members and such but end users/developers themselves will not actually have
direct access to the LTM.

Some of the features Mike mentioned in his presentation were more a
comment on what is possible if we enable a feature to do so. When/If
NoRouter were to expose some of that functionality it would most likely by
done using a Service Broker. For example, if an application wishes to
provide a custom OOS page we wouldn't give the developer direct access to
the LTM to configure an OOS page, instead, I think we'd provide an OOS Page
Service Broker. When created and bound to an application it would prompt
NoRouter to configure the virtual server to use that Custom OOS page for
all of the routers mapped to that application. Keeping the details
sufficiently removed from the developer.

Does that help answer your question?

Mike

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:

Apologize for restarting this thread after a few weeks.

That’s right Mike. Once the LTM opens up to the developers they might
start putting in too much functionality into the Load Balancer like
filters, interceptors. By using NoRouter the LTM will have to be opened up
to the developer team.

I know that there has to be discipline and access control. But was just
putting it out as con in the NoRouter Section.

Hoping that Chip does not have concerns with discussing NoRouter here.
Let me know and I can take this discussion offline.

From: Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM
To: Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>
Cc: Owais Mohamed <owais.mohamed(a)covisint.com>, "
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org" <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] TCP Router VS NoRouter

Hi Owais,

What are you referring to when you say you're concerned about the LTM
becoming a Monolith? Too much functionality in one component? Too much of
the system depending on one component?

Chip,

Hopefully it's ok to discuss NoRouter here even though it isn't an
official CF project. Let us know if it is not.

Mike

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Chip Childers <
cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org> wrote:

The "norouter", while interesting, isn't the official CF project
approach to HTTP traffic routing. The TCP router is being built to support
TCP routing as a general solution, with the goal of it becoming an official
part of the CF release when ready.

-chip

Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Mohamed, Owais <
Owais.Mohamed(a)covisint.com> wrote:

Hi,

I attended sessions on both TCP Router (Cloud Foundry and IOT
protocol support by Atul Kshirsagar) and NoRouter (Norouter: Running
Cloud Foundry without the Gorouter by Mike Heath).

I just wanted to start a discussion on the pros and cons of each
approach.

As personal opinion I think NoRouter is a simpler approach and can
definitely be made to support IOT protocols. The main drawback I see with
the NoRouter is the danger of the LTM becoming a Monolith.

Any suggestions\ideas?

Regards,
Owais


_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev