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
One challenge folks getting started with Crossplane have is how to design their custom APIs - i.e. how to design XR OpenAPI schemas. It's hard to go from nothing to a serviceable API that can evolve over time without breaking changes.
I think the Crossplane maintainers will have some useful tips for this. A lot of our job is designing new APIs for Crossplane, and we've certainly made and learned mistakes with Crossplane's APIs. Kubernetes API conventions capture a lot of this and we could draw out some of the more important things called out in that document. I'd also include things like:
If you're introducing a new object (e.g. spec.databaseConfiguration), could it be implemented a few different ways in future? If so, consider using a type differentiator field (e.g. spec.databaseConfigurationType) and nesting each type's configuration in its own object.
If you introduce an array of objects, always require some field that uniquely identifies each object (e.g. name).
Always look at your API through the lens of "how far could I evolve this API by only adding new optional fields?"
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What's Missing?
One challenge folks getting started with Crossplane have is how to design their custom APIs - i.e. how to design XR OpenAPI schemas. It's hard to go from nothing to a serviceable API that can evolve over time without breaking changes.
I think the Crossplane maintainers will have some useful tips for this. A lot of our job is designing new APIs for Crossplane, and we've certainly made and learned mistakes with Crossplane's APIs. Kubernetes API conventions capture a lot of this and we could draw out some of the more important things called out in that document. I'd also include things like:
spec.databaseConfiguration
), could it be implemented a few different ways in future? If so, consider using atype
differentiator field (e.g.spec.databaseConfigurationType
) and nesting each type's configuration in its own object.name
).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: