Open Stack

I agree with Doug as well. We should update the current patch. Susanne


On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton at vmware.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
> I took a look at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331/ and had one
> minor issue which I think can be addressed. Prior to approving we need to
> understand what the state of the V2 API will be.
> Thanks
> Gary
>
>   From: Vijay Venkatachalam <Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com>
> Reply-To: OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Sunday, August 10, 2014 at 2:57 PM
> To: OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Improvements to current
> reviews
>
>   Thanks Brandon for constant  improvisation.
>
> I agree with Doug. Please update current one. We already hv  more number
> of reviews :-). It will be difficult to manage if we add more.
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay
>
> Sent using CloudMagic
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Doug Wiegley <dougw at a10networks.com>
> wrote:
>
>  I think you should update the current reviews (new patch set, not
> additional review.)
>
> Doug
>
>
> > 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
> > change:
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331/
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105609/
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brandon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140811/9510db57/attachment.html>