pkg/server/api: Drop the muxer

[wking]

Each sub-handler would be switching on Path anyway, and we don't have so many paths for the muxer's extra level of path switching to help much. And it's nice to only have to put things like #240's method guard in one spot (vs. repeating in each of the muxer's sub-handlers).

CC @abhinavdahiya

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: wking

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [wking]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[abhinavdahiya]

/hold

[cgwalters]

LGTM

[abhinavdahiya]

IMO the muxer is how most people writer servers, i don't want to keep adding switches for /metrics and then /healthz and if we have v2 for config then.. /v2/config

package main

import (
	"fmt"
	"log"
	"net/http"
)

type apiHandler struct{}

func (apiHandler) ServeHTTP(_ http.ResponseWriter, req *http.Request) {
	log.Println(req.URL.Path)
}

func main() {
	mux := http.NewServeMux()
	mux.Handle("/healthz", apiHandler{})
	mux.Handle("/config/", apiHandler{})

	server := &http.Server{
		Addr:    fmt.Sprintf(":%v", 8080),
		Handler: mux,
	}
	server.ListenAndServe()
}

mux.go

[9:56:55] ➜  playground go run mux.go
2018/12/17 10:01:49 /healthz
2018/12/17 10:02:25 /config/master

curl

[10:00:43] ➜  ~ curl http://localhost:8080/
404 page not found
[10:01:16] ➜  ~ curl http://localhost:8080/healthz
[10:02:06] ➜  ~ curl http://localhost:8080/config/master

So i'm not sure what you mean by switching on Path in all handlers... ?

[abhinavdahiya]

So separate handler per path

package main

import (
	"fmt"
	"log"
	"net/http"
	"path"
)

type healthzHandler struct{}

func (healthzHandler) ServeHTTP(w http.ResponseWriter, req *http.Request) {
	log.Println(req.URL.Path)
	w.WriteHeader(http.StatusAccepted)
}

type configHandler struct{}

func (configHandler) ServeHTTP(_ http.ResponseWriter, req *http.Request) {
	log.Println(req.URL.Path)
	log.Println(path.Base(req.URL.Path))
}

func main() {
	mux := http.NewServeMux()
	mux.Handle("/healthz", healthzHandler{})
	mux.Handle("/config/", configHandler{})

	server := &http.Server{
		Addr:    fmt.Sprintf(":%v", 8080),
		Handler: mux,
	}
	server.ListenAndServe()
}

mux.go

[10:10:11] ➜  playground go run mux.go
2018/12/17 10:10:21 /healthz
2018/12/17 10:10:27 /config/master
2018/12/17 10:10:27 master
2018/12/17 10:10:33 /config/worker
2018/12/17 10:10:33 worker

curl

[10:10:03] ➜  ~ curl -v http://localhost:8080/healthz
*   Trying ::1...
* TCP_NODELAY set
* Connected to localhost (::1) port 8080 (#0)
> GET /healthz HTTP/1.1
> Host: localhost:8080
> User-Agent: curl/7.59.0
> Accept: */*
>
< HTTP/1.1 202 Accepted
< Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:10:21 GMT
< Content-Length: 0
<
* Connection #0 to host localhost left intact
[10:10:21] ➜  ~ curl -v http://localhost:8080/config/master
*   Trying ::1...
* TCP_NODELAY set
* Connected to localhost (::1) port 8080 (#0)
> GET /config/master HTTP/1.1
> Host: localhost:8080
> User-Agent: curl/7.59.0
> Accept: */*
>
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:10:27 GMT
< Content-Length: 0
<
* Connection #0 to host localhost left intact
[10:10:27] ➜  ~ curl -v http://localhost:8080/config/worker
*   Trying ::1...
* TCP_NODELAY set
* Connected to localhost (::1) port 8080 (#0)
> GET /config/worker HTTP/1.1
> Host: localhost:8080
> User-Agent: curl/7.59.0
> Accept: */*
>
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:10:33 GMT
< Content-Length: 0
<
* Connection #0 to host localhost left intact
[10:10:49] ➜  ~

[wking]

IMO the muxer is how most people writer servers, i don't want to keep adding switches for /metrics and then /healthz and if we have v2 for config then...

Fair enough. It just comes down to how stable and complicated you expect this server to be. If you have lots of complicated, orthogonal routes, muxer makes a lot of sense. But if you only have /healthz and /config/{role}, the muxer requires code duplication for things like #240. My cloudy crystal ball says that many additional routes are unlikely, and we can always return to using a muxer if/when we grow those additional routes. But if you want to stick to the muxer just in case, we can close this and I'll reroll my other PRs to take that approach.

[abhinavdahiya]

IMO the muxer is how most people writer servers, i don't want to keep adding switches for /metrics and then /healthz and if we have v2 for config then...

Fair enough. It just comes down to how stable and complicated you expect this server to be. If you have lots of complicated, orthogonal routes, muxer makes a lot of sense. But if you only have /healthz and /config/{role}, the muxer requires code duplication for things like #240. My cloudy crystal ball says that many additional routes are unlikely, and we can always return to using a muxer if/when we grow those additional routes. But if you want to stick to the muxer just in case, we can close this and I'll reroll my other PRs to take that approach.

keeping them in separate handlers allows the server to report more information in /healthz down the line and also /metrics is definitely coming.. :)

IMO so i want to keep the muxer, its not a very big overhead.

[wking]

/close

[openshift-ci-robot]

@wking: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

/close

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.