Let me clarify. I'm still 100% on board with binding a service to a
route. What I'm proposing with my different perspective is to decouple the
idea of a Route service being a proxy and think of a service bound to a
route as a generic way to apply enhanced functionality to a route (not
necessarily through a proxy) and make applying a proxy to a route a
standard extension to a route service similar in concept to how a service
meant to be bound to an app can be enhanced to provide a log drain.

Does that make sense?

Mike

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:36 AM, James Bayer <jbayer(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

we explored the ux of app to service binding in detail, but it is
problematic.

apps will soon support multiple routes on different ports.
e.g. imagine an app with 3 ports:
web traffic goes to container port 8080 on web.example.com
admin traffic goes to container port 8888 on admin.example.com
jmx goes to 9000 on jmx.example.com

which of the 3 routes should the route service bound to the app be
associated with?

a route can be mapped to multiple apps, what happens when some apps
mapped to a route have a route service bound and others don't?

shannon can probably explain more of the problem areas that we discussed,
i need to get to bed :)


On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

This thread [0] on Route services has got me thinking. I'd like to
propose a slightly different perspective on the route services concept.

A typical service today, lets call them "App Services" at its most base
function exists to apply some functionality to an application. Typically
that functionality comes in the form of credentials supplied to an
application. But not always. For example, a Log Drain App Service applies
log drain functionality to an app. My organization has other services that
apply other functionality to an app not necessarily in the form of
credentials.

So, with that perspective what should a "Route Service" be? I think at
its basest form a Route Service should simply be a way to applying
functionality to a Route. (note I said nothing about proxies).

Just like a log drain app service is a type of App Service. I think a
Proxy Route Service could be viewed as a type of Route Service. Why is
this distinction important? I think it keeps the vision of a route service
more simple, pure, and less implementation specific.

I think with this perspective route services become much simpler and
more powerful. You support binding one or more route services to a route
just like today you can bind one or more app services to an app. However,
if the service identifies itself as a Proxy Route Service (just like a
service can identify itself as a log drain service) then the Cloud
Controller simply fails the bind because today we only allow one proxy
route services to be bound to a route at a time. The UX becomes simply:

cf bind/unbind-route-service

We leave the problem of ordering multiple Proxy Route Services as a
future problem. Of which I think user provided ordering is only one
possible solution. I believe other more natural and simple solutions will
present themselves over time.

Thoughts?

Mike

[0] http://lists.cloudfoundry.org/pipermail/cf-dev/2015-June/000535.html

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

--
Thank you,

James Bayer

_______________________________________________
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