Open Stack

Hi Oleg,

This is exactly what I was talking about.
One thing you might want to consider before choosing for one direction or
the other is that at the moment Quantum API does not use sub resources at
all.
There was a long discussion on this regard while designing the v2 API. The
gist of the discussion was that if a resource needed sub-resources then
there was a case for a sub-resource to become a 'first citizen' in the API.
I am pretty sure you already have mulled over whether health_monitors
should be a resource of their own, a sub resource of the pool, or a
multi-valued attribute of the pool, but I wanted to give you a heads-up
anyway.

On your technical questions I have some answers inline.

Salvatore

On 15 November 2012 15:40, Oleg Bondarev <obondarev at mirantis.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,****
>
> ** **
>
> As Salvatore said there is a way to specify parent for a resource (see
> quantum.extensions.extensions.ResourceExtension) which allows route mapping
> for rest calls like:****
>
> ** **
>
> POST /v1.0/pools/{pool_id}/health_monitors****
>
> DELETE /v1.0/pools/{pool_id}/health_monitors/{id}****
>
> …****
>
> ** **
>
> In this case corresponding resource controller should be aware of resource
> parent and be able to handle CRUD operations with an additional parent_id
> parameter.  Currently it doesn’t. Actually I am speaking about
> quantum.api.v2.base.Controller – so, Salvatore, do you think it is the
> right place to include sub-resource/parent handling?
>

Working on controllers in quantum.api.v2 is the best option in my opinion.
This however depends on how the route mapper associates controllers with
sub resources. Currently, the extension framework and the core API use two
distinct code paths: the former uses
quantum.extensions.extensions.ExtensionMiddleware whereas the latter uses
quantum.api.v2.router.APIRouter (this is for historical reasons only; as
far as I can recall, there's no technical reason for this). The Extension
Middleware has a mechanism for mapping associating parent resources to a
mapped resource, whereas the APIRouter does not have such mechanism.

As the controller does not care about how URI paths are mapped on its
methods, the only thing we probably need to worry about is how to make sure
that the parent resource id is passed to the controller for the
sub-resource. To this aim, I would probably define a new controller which
extends the base one rather than modifying quantum.api.v2.base.Controller.
Btw, there is of course the hackish way of skipping base.create_resource
and passing to ResourceExtension an object providing implementation for the
appropriate methods. I am totally sure you're aware of this option too, but
I would consider it only a last resort.



> ****
>
> ** **
>
> And also how do you guys think should this improvement be done as a
> separate patch?
>

Separate patches in these cases are always preferred.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Oleg****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Youcef Laribi [mailto:Youcef.Laribi at eu.citrix.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:03 PM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [quantum] Quantum extension framework issue
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Oleg,****
>
> ** **
>
> The “/pools/{pool_id}/health_monitors” REST resource is intended to be a
> collection sub-resource of the “/pools/{pool_id}” resource, so if the
> Quantum WSGI framework can be improved to support REST sub-resources that
> would be better and cleaner.****
>
> ** **
>
> Youcef****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Salvatore Orlando [mailto:sorlando at nicira.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:00 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [quantum] Quantum extension framework issue
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Oleg,****
>
> ** **
>
> When I read your first email, I had the same impression as Dan.****
>
> health_monitors look more like a subresource than an action. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The WSGI framework at the moment is not able to manage subresources; this
> does not mean we cannot improve it though. Nevertheless, in this case the
> route mapping is not performed by the API classes in quantum/api, but by
> the extension manager. I think there should already be a way for specifying
> parent resources with extensions, but that needs to be explored.****
>
> ** **
>
> It seems however that you are now trying to map operations on health
> monitors using distinct member actions (add_health_monitor,
> get_health_monitors). This is similar to what happens with the L3 API for
> router interfaces.****
>
> However, it seems the original idea behind the API design was to treat
> health_monitors as an explicit collection, which would also be probably a
> more 'restful' way of doing it. I think ultimately the question should be
> directed to Youcef and the team which contributed to the design of the
> LBaaS API.****
>
> On 14 November 2012 17:18, Oleg Bondarev <obondarev at mirantis.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> Hi Dan,****
>
> Thanks for your comment here. ****
>
> Just wanted to correct a mistake in my first email: of course there can’t
> be a dict with duplicate keys. The idea was to use list of pairs, like:***
> *
>
> member_actions = [{“health_monitors”: “GET”}, ****
>
>                                          {“health_monitors”: “POST”}]****
>
> to have an ability of using same function name with different request
> actions. Initially I thought that the framework provides such ability but
> does not dispatch requests correctly. I was wrong.****
>
> Actually there is no issue with the framework as it assumes using unique
> action names for different request methods. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I believe we should update LBaaS REST API doc and use
> “get_health_monitors”, “add_health_monitors”, etc. to fit in the framework.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Oleg****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Dan Wendlandt [mailto:dan at nicira.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:27 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [quantum] Quantum extension framework issue
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Oleg,****
>
>  ****
>
> Folks from the API-subteam can correct me, but I believe this use model is
> outside of what the API framework was trying to enable with "actions".  The
> idea is that you use POST/DELETE to create an delete API "resources" (which
> actually have UUIDs, for example, the "pool" in your example below) and
> then do a PUT to an "action" to cause some kind of change that you can
> affect on a resource (e.g., "add_health_monitor" or
> "remove_health_monitor").  It sounds like what you are proposing is more
> treating "health_monitors" almost as a "sub-resource", which is not really
> what the "actions" stuff was designed for.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> I haven't been deeply involved in the LBaaS api design discussion though,
> so I'd also like to hear from Salvatore, et al. on the API sub-team.****
>
>  ****
>
> Dan****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Oleg Bondarev <obondarev at mirantis.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi guys,****
>
>  ****
>
> While working on the API extension for LBaaS I didn’t find a way to use
> custom member actions if they have the same name and differ only by request
> method, for example****
>
>  ****
>
> List all health monitors of a specific pool: GET
> /pool/pool_id/health_monitors****
>
> Associate health monitors with a pool: POST /pool/pool_id/health_monitors*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> In quantum extension framework we pass “health_monitors” as member
> actions for a controller (quantum.api.v2.base.create_resource())****
>
>  ****
>
> member_actions = {'health_monitors': 'GET',****
>
>                                         'health_monitors': 'POST'}****
>
>  ****
>
> controller = base.create_resource(collection_name,****
>
>                                     resource_name,****
>
>                                     plugin, params,****
>
>                                     member_actions=member_actions)****
>
>  ****
>
> According to the Controller implementation it dispatches all custom member
> actions to its plugin attr:****
>
>  ****
>
> def __getattr__(self, name):****
>
>         if name in self._member_actions:****
>
>             def _handle_action(request, id, body=None):****
>
>                 return getattr(self._plugin, name)(request.context, id,
> body)****
>
>             return _handle_action****
>
>         else:****
>
>             raise AttributeError****
>
>  ****
>
> Where request.context is of type quantum.context.Context and does not
> contain info about request method.****
>
> As a result there is no way to distinguish two custom actions in the
> plugin. ****
>
> Is it an issue in the framework?****
>
>  ****
>
> Possible solution may be in concatenation of request method and action
> name (“get_health_monitors”, “post_health_monitors”) in a controller before
> dispatching them to a plugin.****
>
> What do you think? ****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Oleg****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
>
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dan Wendlandt ****
>
> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com****
>
> twitter: danwendlandt
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> 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/20121115/f7f29f79/attachment.html>