General feature enhancements + Support for multiple instance types

[cedricmckinnie]

What problem are you facing?

First of all, very nice work. Thank you for setting a wonderful foundation for the Crossplane community. I imagine these configurations will drive structured creativity in what I would consider a somewhat scattered ecosystem!

I would like to propose a few feature requests that I think could bring a lot of support. I believe a big factor in the decision to use Terraform over Crossplane is the fact that there are so many upstream terraform modules. I would consider Crossplane Configurations to be roughly analogous to a TF module reconciled by k8s controllers. This configuration seems to be intended for the same purpose as the terraform-aws-eks module however, side-by-side they're not quite (yet) equivalent.

I understand that this is not an exact apples-to-apples comparison however overall, if this configuration can reach feature parity with the TF EKS module, I feel it will illuminate a much brighter path for k8s enthusiasts who would prefer it but are uncertain or Crossplane skeptics who may not see the value over using TF.

I would consider the TF module to be mature enough to use as a model for common use cases that have been captured and bring supporters to this tool.

Here are a few features that I think would enrich this configuration based on TF AWS EKS:

• Multiple Nodegroups: This would mean supplying a map instead of a single nodegroup config parameter.
• Multiple Instance Types: This is a standard feature of EKS. I feel that when surfacing parameters to a resource like a Nodegroup, maintaining the object type helps to future-proof the parameter.
• See the examples for more ideas on how to improve this configuration based on the learnings/improvements of that project. The examples also demonstrate my points above.

Perhaps my understanding of the intended audience is off but I hope you find this to be useful nonetheless. Thanks!

How could Upbound help solve your problem?

Epic #

[ytsarev]

@cedricmckinnie thanks a lot for this feedback. Feature parity with the popular TF module makes total sense. We will evaluate the potential roadmap for this Configuration incorporating your input 👍

[melkyah]

+1 to multiple nodegroups and the overall request. Lowering the barrier of entry for most TF people managing the most common managed Kubernetes providers would be a hug push foe ease of adoption!