You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Given that we only want to support host based routing, aka require to use the exposed hostname to access the route, we should be able to get away with not modifying any of the user resources.
We already create a VirtualService bound to the exposed host name to add the header property, and we should be able to have multiple gateways with different hosts, we might get away with not manipulating the users VirtualService, but rather both add headers and match headers in our own VirtualService. Investigate.
Why
Generally speaking we should avoid touching the users configured resources.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What can be improved
Given that we only want to support host based routing, aka require to use the exposed hostname to access the route, we should be able to get away with not modifying any of the user resources.
We already create a VirtualService bound to the exposed host name to add the header property, and we should be able to have multiple gateways with different hosts, we might get away with not manipulating the users VirtualService, but rather both add headers and match headers in our own VirtualService. Investigate.
Why
Generally speaking we should avoid touching the users configured resources.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: