Reconcile kubelet and kube-proxy watching code, initial steps. #3392
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| resourceVersion string | ||
| waitDuration time.Duration | ||
| reconnectDuration time.Duration | ||
| } |
erictune
force-pushed
the
reflector_proxy
branch
from
4204766 to
5d742f9
Compare
Split SourceAPI into two subobjects. Parallel structure for endpoints, services will allow changing to use generic code in pkg/client/cache/reflector.go. Rename some funcs to be more like pkg/client/cache.
erictune
force-pushed
the
reflector_proxy
branch
from
47a7aa9 to
2958002
Compare
|
squashed |
|
LGTM |
lavalamp
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2015
Reconcile kubelet and kube-proxy watching code, initial steps.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
kubelet and kube-proxy have functionally similar, but different resource watching code.
I have a long term mission to have them share most of the same code (along with scheduler and controller manager). These simple refactors are baby steps towards that goal. I'll squash after review and the separate commits make it easier to review (and easier to rebase, so I don't really get what is so hot about squashing, but that is another discussion.)