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
minor updates to proposal to clarify a few points #842
minor updates to proposal to clarify a few points #842
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
NIT on the wording.
docs/proposals/apb-state-support.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Under the hood, this APB module would take the key-value pair, and store it in a | ||
| ConfigMap named ```$POD_NAME```. This ConfigMap would live within the | ||
| temporary namespace ```$POD_NAMESPACE``` and be created by the broker before the APB pod was created. | ||
| temporary namespace ```$POD_NAMESPACE``` and be created by the Service Bundle when with the first call to ```asb_set_state```. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Service Bundle when with the first call to...
Service Bundle on the first call to... ?
| After an action was successfully completed (ie the Service Bundle exited with a 0 exit code) and before the sandbox namespace was removed, the broker would copy the ConfigMap back to the broker's namespace and name it ```<ServiceInstanceID>-state```. If a ConfigMap with | ||
| that name was already present, the broker would update and append the values. | ||
| There should only ever be one ConfigMap per ServiceInstance. The ConfigMap would be removed from the broker's namespace | ||
| once the the deprovision action completed successfully. | ||
| once the the deprovision action was invoked for that ServiceInstance. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is fine for now. I think that soon we will need to worry about subsequent deprovsion calls after a failed deprovsion. I think this is something that the service catalog is working on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok good to know.
|
@shawn-hurley updated wording |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK
Minor changes to ensure the proposal lines up with what will be done.