-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Determine final NameResolver to LoadBalancer communication #4302
Comments
This issue is no longer impacted by the design of proxy information. @zhangkun83 and I discussed how proxy will be handled. We feel good about having a The case that isn't handled well is when this additional information is optional, because that forces all downstream consumers of the The "each address in an EAG is supposed to be pretty equivalent" is a false assumption today, as |
This avoids the needs to flatten to EAGs for cases like PickFirst, making the Attributes in EAGs able to be used in communication with core. See grpc#4302 for some discussion on the topic.
This avoids the needs to flatten to EAGs for cases like PickFirst, making the Attributes in EAGs able to be used in communication with core. See #4302 for some discussion on the topic.
Alluded to in #4137 (comment) . The biggest issue is probably how Java allows a list of lists of addresses. This is different than the other implementations. We need to come to a cross-language agreement about whether list of lists is necessary.
But we also need to design the final solution for how proxy information should be plumbed from the NameResolver through the LoadBalancer into Subchannel. That will remove
PairSocketAddress
or stabilize it (with a better name!).CC @zhangkun83
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: