[openstack-dev] [nova] [neutron] the nova network facade that isn't
Fox, Kevin M
Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov
Tue Apr 19 21:07:10 UTC 2016
I've got scripts I use nova floating ip subcommands to attach/detach floating ips occasionally because it was easier to write then using the equiv neutron commands even though I'm using neutron. I'd think some folks will be doing the same.
That being said, we'll have to rewrite all that code for the unified openstack client anyway, so the porting effort will have to happen one way or the other anyway. So probably not that big a deal. But probably best in the deprecation notes to point them to the openstack client instead of the neutron client if they are using nova instead of neutron cli for some neutron bits.
From: melanie witt [melwittt at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:35 PM
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [neutron] the nova network facade that isn't
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:02:46 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> Right, I think in the Havana timeframe, things were very different. Part
> of the rationale for full parity was that applications would be written
> against nova-network, and smoothly transition to neutron. But with over
> 90% neutron, assuming someone is writing to the nova-network API and not
> realizing it's the odd ball, I think is the wrong assumption.
> The APIs that work, they are what they are, but we should not make any
> more work.
I think this sounds reasonable. Don't deprecate nova-network, let it be
what it is and look at deprecating the neutron proxying (other than what
occurs during the server create flow).
It doesn't seem helpful at this point to have neutron users call through
nova to do things with neutron.
We could run this idea by for operator feedback to see if there are
issues with it we haven't considered.
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev