Skip to content

Route management

Context and Problem Statement

It has been decided earlier in this ADR: Edge cert ADR to handle Route resources and TLS (Let'sEncrypt, static certs) integration for the user. It appears that this choice might not be the right one as:

  • A Route is only specific to OpenShift and prevent usage on Kubernetes
  • A Route controller is custom to the Cluster and underlying infrastructure thus Route resources might need extra settings (labels, ...) to be functional.
  • A Route might need to be amended by extra controller to handle the TLS section.
  • A Route might not be need when a Service Type LoadBalancer and an external DNS is used.

Considered Options

    1. Make the Route optional and keep the current code:

Pros and Cons of this option:

  • Good because the sf-operator provide more optionalities and functionalities

  • Bad because we need to maintain more code and more doc

    1. Remove the Route handling and clean extra code

Pros and Cons of this option:

  • Good because, sf-operator become more agnostic regarding OpenShift or Kubernetes
  • Good because we simplify the code base and documentation

Decision Outcome

Chosen option:

    1. Remove the Route handling and clean extra code