Improve EventType Registry
Problem
EventType is tightly coupled with Broker. In fact, it has a broker attribute in its spec. We should decouple EventType from it.
The EventType registry itself should be "autonomous", while other constructs (e.g., brokers, channels) should be able to refer to it (ack @markfisher )
This idea has been floating around for a while now, probably since the EventType registry inception (ack @n3wscott).
We should also probably add few more things to it, such as available extensions an EventType can produce, etc. Still TBD.
Creating this issue separately from https://github.com/knative/eventing/issues/2484, which mainly refers to improving the current implementation.
Persona: Which persona is this feature for? Developer
Exit Criteria A decoupled EventType registry, "queryable" from different constructs
Time Estimate (optional): infinite
Additional context (optional) https://github.com/knative/eventing/issues/2484 for some initial proposals there...
/cc @vaikas @mikehelmick @n3wscott @mattmoor @grantr @lionelvillard @markfisher , etc, etc...
/cc @mikehelmick
Here are some initial thoughts on how we can improve EventType before promoting it to v1 (or maybe v1beta2?): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LtDPmithgr6Myj9eagIQ6IHQjsjAtzZlX3d0D4fw2A0/edit#
It'd be great to get feedback from folks: /cc @vaikas
This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no
activity. It will automatically close after 30 more days of
inactivity. Reopen the issue with /reopen. Mark the issue as
fresh by adding the comment /remove-lifecycle stale.
/remove-lifecycle stale
This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no
activity. It will automatically close after 30 more days of
inactivity. Reopen the issue with /reopen. Mark the issue as
fresh by adding the comment /remove-lifecycle stale.
/remove-lifecycle stale
Is this still relevant? Can we close it? @vaikas @n3wscott
@grantr is working on this.
/assign @grantr
@grantr are you taking over Nacho's proposal or planning on taking a different approach?
This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no
activity. It will automatically close after 30 more days of
inactivity. Reopen the issue with /reopen. Mark the issue as
fresh by adding the comment /remove-lifecycle stale.
/triage accepted
The reconciler should also not enforce a broker:
b, err := r.getBroker(et)
if err != nil {
if apierrs.IsNotFound(err) {
logging.FromContext(ctx).Errorw("Broker does not exist", zap.Error(err))
et.Status.MarkBrokerDoesNotExist()
This is the newest version of the doc:
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhhLSJJ7GWcyidK0_78MpgRzyfjW-fkeXfo6UTudqOc/edit?resourcekey=0-q31cg7nTwdLIYXYUQqkTuw
(after the other referenced got copied over to new GDrive)
/close we can close this,
as we have moved a different path, and we keep the "reference" on the ET (see other issues and feature tracks here)
/assign @matzew
/close
as per comments above
@matzew: Closing this issue.
In response to this:
/close
as per comments above
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.