[openstack-dev] [Ironic] Command structure for OSC plugin

Dean Troyer dtroyer at gmail.com
Tue Sep 1 20:47:03 UTC 2015


[late catch-up]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
wrote:

> Excerpts from Brad P. Crochet's message of 2015-08-24 15:35:59 -0400:
> > On 24/08/15 18:19 +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
> > >
> > >From a user perspective, where bare metal and VMs are just different
> flavors (with varying capabilities), can we not use the same commands
> (server create/rebuild/...) ? Containers will create the same conceptual
> problems.
> > >
> > >OSC can provide a converged interface but if we just replace '$ ironic
> XXXX' by '$ openstack baremetal XXXX', this seems to be a missed
> opportunity to hide the complexity from the end user.
> > >
> > >Can we re-use the existing server structures ?
>

I've wondered about how users would see doing this, we've done it already
with the quota and limits commands (blurring the distinction between
project APIs).  At some level I am sure users really do not care about some
of our project distinctions.


> To my knowledge, overriding or enhancing existing commands like that
>
> is not possible.
>
> You would have to do it in tree, by making the existing commands
> smart enough to talk to both nova and ironic, first to find the
> server (which service knows about something with UUID XYZ?) and
> then to take the appropriate action on that server using the right
> client. So it could be done, but it might lose some of the nuance
> between the server types by munging them into the same command. I
> don't know what sorts of operations are different, but it would be
> worth doing the analysis to see.
>

I do have an experimental plugin that hooks the server create command to
add some options and change its behaviour so it is possible, but right now
I wouldn't call it supported at all.  That might be something that we could
consider doing though for things like this.

The current model for commands calling multiple project APIs is to put them
in openstackclient.common, so yes, in-tree.

Overall, though, to stay consistent with OSC you would map operations into
the current verbs as much as possible.  It is best to think in terms of how
the CLI user is thinking and what she wants to do, and not how the REST or
Python API is written.  In this case, 'baremetal' is a type of server, a
set of attributes of a server, etc.  As mentioned earlier, containers will
also have a similar paradigm to consider.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150901/a30e2a8a/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list