[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Improvements to current reviews
AvishayB at Radware.com
Sun Aug 10 09:55:47 UTC 2014
" I think you should update the current reviews (new patch set, not additional review.)"
I like those changes: +2
From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:dougw at a10networks.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 12:51 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Improvements to current reviews
I think you should update the current reviews (new patch set, not additional review.)
> On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:34 PM, "Brandon Logan" <brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM> wrote:
> So I've done some work on improving the code on the current pending
> reviews. And would like to get peoples' opinions on whether I should
> add antoher patch set to those reviews, or add the changes as as
> another review dependent on the pending ones.
> To be clear, no matter what the first review in the chain will not
> However, if adding another patch set is preferrable then plugin and db
> implementation review would get another patch set and then obviously
> anything depending on that.
> My opinion is that I'd like to get both of these in as a new patch set.
> Reason being that the reviews don't have any +2's and there is
> uncertainty because of the GBP discussion. So, I don't think it'd be
> a major issue if a new patch set was created. Speak up if you think
> otherwise. I'd like to get as many people's thoughts as possible.
> The changes are:
> 1) Added data models, which are just plain python object mimicking the
> sql alchemy models, but don't have the overhead or dynamic nature of
> being sql alchemy models. These data models are now returned by the
> database methods, instead of the sql alchemy objects. Also, I moved
> the definition of the sql alchemy models into its own module. I've
> been wanting to do this but since I thought I was running out of time
> I left it for later.
> These shouldn't cause many merge/rebase conflicts, but it probably
> cause a few because the sql alchemy models were moved to a different module.
> 2) The LoadBalancerPluginv2 no longer inherits from the
> LoadBalancerPluginDbv2. The database is now a composite attribute of
> the plugin (i.e. plugin.db.get_loadbalancer()). This cleans up the
> code a bit and removes the necessity for _delete_db_entity methods
> that the drivers needed because now they can actually call the database methods.
> Also, this makes testing more clear, though I have not added any tests
> for this because the previous tests are sufficient for now. Adding
> the appropriate tests would add 1k or 2k lines most likely.
> This will likely cause more conflicts because the _db_delete_entity
> methods have been removed. However, the new driver interface/mixins
> defined a db_method for all drivers to use, so if that is being used
> there shouldn't be any problems.
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-dev