Open Stack

> It's not intuitive to the User, if they are specifying a version alone.  You don't boot a 'version' of something, with specifying what that some thing is.  I would rather they only specified the datastore_type alone, and not have them specify a version at all.

I agree for most users just selecting the datastore_type would be most intutive.

However, when they specify a version it's going to a be GUID which they could only possibly know if they have recently enumerated all versions and thus *know* the version is for the given type they want. In that case I don't think most users would appreciate having to also pass the type- it would just be redundant. So in that case why not make it optional?

________________________________
From: Vipul Sabhaya [vipuls at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 5:09 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Trove] How users should specify a datastore type when creating an instance




On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Michael Basnight <mbasnight at gmail.com<mailto:mbasnight at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Oct 21, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Tim Simpson wrote:

>>> 2. I also think a datastore_version alone should be sufficient since the associated datastore type will be implied:
>
>> When i brought this up it was generally discussed as being confusing. Id like to use type and rely on having a default (or active) version behind the scenes.
>
> Can't we do both? If a user wants a specific version, most likely they had to enumerate all datastore_versions, spot it in a list, and grab the guid. Why force them to also specify the datastore_type when we can easily determine what that is?

Fair enough.


It's not intuitive to the User, if they are specifying a version alone.  You don't boot a 'version' of something, with specifying what that some thing is.  I would rather they only specified the datastore_type alone, and not have them specify a version at all.

>
>>> 4. Additionally, in the current pull request to implement this it is possible to avoid passing a version, but only if no more than one version of the datastore_type exists in the database.
>>>
>>> I think instead the datastore_type row in the database should also have a "default_version_id" property, that an operator could update to the most recent version or whatever other criteria they wish to use, meaning the call could become this simple:
>
>> Since we have determined from this email thread that we have an active status, and that > 1 version can be active, we have to think about the precedence of active vs default. My question would be, if we have a default_version_id and a active version, what do we choose on behalf of the user? If there is > 1 active version and a user does not specify the version, the api will error out, unless a default is defined. We also need a default_type in the config so the existing APIs can maintain compatibility. We can re-discuss this for v2 of the API.
>
> Imagine that an operator sets up Trove and only has one active version. They then somehow fumble setting up the default_version, but think they succeeded as the API works for users the way they expect anyway. Then they go to add another active version and suddenly their users get error messages.
>
> If we only use the "default_version" field of the datastore_type to define a default would honor the principle of least surprise.

Are you saying you must have a default version defined to have > 1 active versions?


I think it makes sense to have a 'Active' flag on every version -- and a default flag for the version that should be used as a default in the event the user doesn't specify.  It also makes sense to require the deployer to set this accurately, and if one doesn't exist instance provisioning errors out.

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131022/e67dcbca/attachment.html>