Every module names its endpoints, and every route names the one it serves
75 endpoints across 50 modules, named from what each one is for rather than by a rule: mail's seven protocol ports are smtp, imaps, submission and the rest; unifi's nine are inform, stun, discovery, the two portal ports and syslog; minio's two are s3 and console; the resolver's two are dns-udp and dns-tcp. And 35 route contributions name the endpoint they serve instead of repeating its port. A route and a listen both carried a port and nothing said they were the same thing; now one of them does. gitea's path-level deny rule names neither, because it is a rule about a name rather than an endpoint. novox/hq ADR 0138. The words shipped a release ahead in mesh-controller #138 and #139, and the control plane running today is built from that merge — checked before this was written, because an unknown manifest key is refused and a catalogue using one against an older control plane would stop resolving.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -17,11 +17,11 @@
|
||||
"route": {
|
||||
"site": {
|
||||
"label": "invoicing",
|
||||
"port": 80
|
||||
"endpoint": "web"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"api": {
|
||||
"label": "invoicing-api",
|
||||
"port": 9000
|
||||
"endpoint": "api"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
@@ -36,12 +36,14 @@
|
||||
},
|
||||
"listens": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "web",
|
||||
"port": 80,
|
||||
"protocol": "tcp",
|
||||
"from": "mesh",
|
||||
"why": "the invoicing web frontend; a public name is a route grant later"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "api",
|
||||
"port": 9000,
|
||||
"protocol": "tcp",
|
||||
"from": "mesh",
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user