Open Stack

Hi folks,

I've briefly looked over the doc.

I think whole idea to base the API on Atlas misses the content switching
use case, which is very important:
We need multiple pools within loadbalancer, and API doesn't seem to allow
that.
If it would, then you'll face another problem: you need to reference those
pools somehow inside the json you use in POST.
There are two options here: use names or IDs, both are putting constraints
and create complexity for both user of such API and for the implementation.

That particular problem becomes worse when it comes to objects which might
not have names while it's better to not provide ID in POST and rely on
their random generation. E.g. when you need to create references between
objects in json input - you'll need to create artificial attributes just
for the parser to understand that such input means.

So that makes me think that right now a 'single-call API' is not flexible
enough to comply with our requirements.
While I understand that it might be simpler to use such API for some cases,
it makes complex configurations fall back to our existing approach which is
creating configuration on per object basis.
While the problem with complex configurations is not sorted out, I'd prefer
if we focus on existing 'object-oriented' approach.

On the other hand, without single-call API the rest of proposal seems to be
similar to approaches discussed in
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/LoadbalancerInstance/Discussion

Thanks,
Eugene.





On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Brandon Logan <brandon.logan at rackspace.com
> wrote:

>  Sorry about that.  It should be readable now.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [enikanorov at mirantis.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3:51 PM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API
> revision progress
>
>   Hi Brandon,
>
>  Seems that doc has not been made public, so please share.
>
>  Thanks,
> Eugene.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Brandon Logan <
> brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
>
>>  Here is Jorge and team’s API proposal based on Atlas.  The document has
>> some questions and answers about why decisions were made.  Feel free to
>> open up a discussion about these questions and answers and really about
>> anything.   This can be changed up to fit any flaws or use cases we missed
>> that this would not support.
>>
>>  There is a CLI example at the bottom along with a possible L7 switching
>> API model.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mTfkkdnPAd4tWOMZAdwHEx7IuFZDULjG9bTmWyXe-zo/edit
>>
>>  Thanks,
>> Brandon Logan
>>
>>   From: Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com>
>> Reply-To: "openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org" <
>> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7:00 AM
>> To: "openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org" <
>> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API
>> revision progress
>>
>>   Hi Stephen,
>>
>>  Thanks for a good summary. Some comments inline.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Stephen Balukoff <sbalukoff at bluebox.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  So! On this front:
>>>
>>>  1. Does is make sense to keep filling out use cases in Samuel's
>>> document above? I can think of several more use cases that our customers
>>> actually use on our current deployments which aren't considered in the 8
>>> cases in Samuel's document thus far. Plus nobody has create any use cases
>>> from the cloud operator perspective yet.
>>>
>>
>>  I treat Sam's doc as a source of use cases to triage API proposals. If
>> you think you have use cases that don't fit into existing API or into
>> proposed API, they should certainly be brought to attention.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  2. It looks like we've started to get real-world data on Load Balancer
>>> features in use in the real world. If you've not added your organization's
>>> data, please be sure to do so soon so we can make informed decisions about
>>> product direction. On this front, when will we be making these decisions?
>>>
>> I'd say we have two kinds of features - one kind is features that affect
>> or even define the object model and API.
>> Other kind are features that are implementable within existing/proposed
>> API or require slight changes/evolution.
>> First kind is the priority: while some of such features may or may not be
>> implemented in some particular release, we need to implement proper
>> infrastructure for them (API, obj model)
>>
>>  Oleg Bondarev (he's neutron core) and me are planning and mostly
>> interested to work on implementing generic stuff like API/obj model and
>> adopt haproxy driver to it. So our goal is to make implementation of
>> particular features simpler for contributors and also make sure that
>> proposed design fits in general lbaas architecture. I believe that everyone
>> who wants to see certain feature may start working on it - propose design,
>> participate in discussions and start actually writing the code.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  3. Jorge-- I know an action item from the last meeting was to draft a
>>> revision of the API (probably starting from something similar to the Atlas
>>> API). Have you had a chance to get started on this, and are you open for
>>> collaboration on this document at this time? Alternatively, I'd be happy to
>>> take a stab at it this week (though I'm not very familiar with the Atlas
>>> API-- so my proposal might not look all that similar).
>>>
>>
>> +1, i'd like to see something as well.
>>
>>
>>>  What format or template should we be following to create the API
>>> documentation?  (I see this here:
>>> http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-network/2.0/content/ch_preface.html but this seems like it might be a little heavy for an API draft that is
>>> likely to get altered significantly, especially given how this discussion
>>> has gone thus far. :/ )
>>>
>>
>>  Agree, that's too heavy for API sketch. I think a set of resources with
>> some attributes plus a few cli calls is what could show the picture.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>> Eugene.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140417/b1434fb5/attachment-0001.html>