yes, this looks more accurate Zexuan Luo <[email protected]> 于2021年5月24日周一 下午9:09写道：
> `admin_api_object_bind ` is confusing. We always bind the objects. > What about configuration_allow_missing_reference? > > ZhengSong Tu <[email protected]> 于2021年5月24日周一 下午8:44写道： > > > > Hi folks, > > > > Background > > > > Now that the apisix admin api has a binding relationship. For example, > > there is an upstream id in a route, and if you want to delete the > upstream > > pointed to by this upstream id, you have to delete the route first, > > otherwise you will get an error like this "can not delete this upstream > ……" > > > > Related to this, apisix also has a problem where the admin api interface > > updates the cache asynchronously (around 0.1s) for objects that have an > > associated relationship. > > > > This means that even if you delete the route and then delete the upstream > > within the asynchronous cache update time period, you will still get "can > > not delete this upstream ......" > > > > > > Solution to discuss > > > > We can provide an option like admin_api_object_bind (default is true). > > > > When admin_api_object_bind is false , the bindings are not checked when > > using the admin api, so that even if the upstream id in the route is > bound > > to the upstream, you can still delete the upstream without getting an > error. > > > > If admin_api_object_bind is true, the bindings will be checked as they > are > > now. > > > > This will cause considerable changes to the CP side and DP side of > apisix. > > Would love to hear the community's thoughts on this. > > also let me know if I am wrong. Looking forward to hearing from > > you. Thanks. >
