search

operator-framework / java-operator-sdk

Java SDK for building Kubernetes Operators
https://javaoperatorsdk.io/
Apache License 2.0
795 stars 214 forks source link

Consider removing `Cloner` interface #2027

Open metacosm opened 1 year ago

metacosm commented 1 year ago

Changes in generic matcher and updater open up the possibility that resources being cloned via the configured Cloner might be serialized differently after being processed by the generic updater. While this is probably a low probably event, it might be better to remove the possibility to customize the cloner (though that would also remove potential optimization options, I'm not sure that anyone is currently doing this or even is aware that is a possibility :grin:)

_Originally posted by @metacosm in https://github.com/operator-framework/java-operator-sdk/pull/2014#discussion_r1302682685_

github-actions[bot] commented 12 months ago

This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 14 days.

github-actions[bot] commented 10 months ago

This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 14 days.

github-actions[bot] commented 7 months ago

This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 14 days.

csviri commented 7 months ago

What about the Kotlin users, I think that was the primary reason to have this Cloner, if I remember correctly.

It was in this issue: https://github.com/operator-framework/java-operator-sdk/issues/573

cc @shawkins @metacosm

csviri commented 7 months ago

After a brief discussion, I will move this out from v5.

On one hand, this now seems unnecessary to have, in the first place cloner was added to address an issue with Kotlin, which is not an issue anymore.

On the other hand, some might experiment with a better cloning approach. While this does not make that much noise there.

In the future, we still might want to remove this though.