Open Gerold103 opened 2 years ago
Why is it a breaking change, if there's no direct use of box inside the router other than to detect it is initialized?
People's code might depend on that if they never call box.cfg
themselves and pass box parameters to router config.
Documentation request: https://github.com/tarantool/doc/issues/3895.
It was decided not to implement that, as it's a change, which breaks users code, but the motivation for that is only beauty of code. Instead box_cfg_mode
was introduced for routers: https://github.com/tarantool/vshard/commit/7a8253cf6d19bd003784b23947bd37457ef204c8. Router can be started with unconfigured box, when box_cfg_mode
is manual
So, the documentation request is https://github.com/tarantool/doc/issues/3935 :)
Let me just keep in a "wish list". There are ways to do breaking changes. I do not agree that this is just for "beauty of code". Router doesn't need box.cfg
. Which means it shouldn't be doing that. As a similar example - why don't we have a movie player in Tarantool? Beauty of code? No, we don't have it there because it is not needed. box.cfg
on the router is like a movie player in Tarantool core, it is not needed there for anything.
That would be a breaking change, but should be done at some point anyway. There is no reason for router to have box configured. It doesn't need storage nor listening on a port.