search

kubernetes-sigs / gateway-api

Repository for the next iteration of composite service (e.g. Ingress) and load balancing APIs.
https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io
Apache License 2.0
1.86k stars 484 forks source link

BackendObjectReference port should be compatible with named port #2420

Closed davinkevin closed 4 months ago

davinkevin commented 1 year ago

What would you like to be added: BackendObjectReference port should be compatible with named port

Why this is needed:

As user of the Gateway API, I'm forced to use the port number defined by the backend service. However, this port may change and I have to sync this manually and/or automate a check for it.

In Ingress API, we have a specific API, where the backend.service.port.name can be used to avoid a direct relationship to a port. This port.name is a useful indirection allowing to separate the implementation (port.number) from the purpose (port.name).

With the GatewayAPI, we don't have this concept anymore.

k8s-triage-robot commented 10 months ago

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.

This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:

You can:

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

davinkevin commented 10 months ago

/unstale 😇

k8s-triage-robot commented 9 months ago

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues.

This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:

You can:

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle rotten

davinkevin commented 9 months ago

@shaneutt, is it possible to remove the lifecycle for it, please?

shaneutt commented 9 months ago

Yes, albeit nobody has stepped up to drive it forward, it's still technically in triage so we need to check on it still.

robscott commented 8 months ago

For the record, this was an intentional omission of the API. Supporting named ports adds more complexity for both implementers and users and generally just introduces more ways that things can break. For anyone interested in pushing this forward, you would need to show that the value of providing this option outweighed the complexity it introduces.

davinkevin commented 7 months ago

I worked on that for few weeks and I understand the reasoning.

Feel free to close it, at least we have an issue answering this question for future people doing the same migration as me… and using a lot named port.

k8s-triage-robot commented 4 months ago

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.

This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:

You can:

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale