Skip to content

Every EventSource should be a ResourceEventSource #2107

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

Closed
csviri opened this issue Oct 24, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #2367
Closed

Every EventSource should be a ResourceEventSource #2107

csviri opened this issue Oct 24, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #2367
Labels
architecture needs-discussion Issue needs to be discussed more before working on it
Milestone

Comments

@csviri
Copy link
Collaborator

csviri commented Oct 24, 2023

Currently even for inbound event sources that is support for event triggering the reconciliation where the event does not contain the actual resource we have a supporting class that actually fetches the resource (within the event source):

https://github.com/java-operator-sdk/java-operator-sdk/blob/47ef983dd4135a05fd6c2cd0650cf0eda1fd3c8e/operator-framework-core/src/main/java/io/javaoperatorsdk/operator/processing/event/source/inbound/CachingInboundEventSource.java

The question is if it makes sense to even have a non resource event source. Probably not. We have to discuss this, and probably change (thus move the API of ResourceEventSource to EventSource) for next major version .

@csviri csviri added this to the 5.0 milestone Oct 24, 2023
Copy link

This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 14 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Dec 24, 2023
@csviri csviri removed the stale label Dec 24, 2023
Copy link

This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 14 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Feb 23, 2024
@csviri csviri removed the stale label Feb 23, 2024
@csviri csviri added the needs-discussion Issue needs to be discussed more before working on it label Mar 7, 2024
@csviri csviri linked a pull request Apr 29, 2024 that will close this issue
@csviri csviri closed this as completed May 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
architecture needs-discussion Issue needs to be discussed more before working on it
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant