[openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax additions/changes

John Schwarz jschwarz at redhat.com
Tue Aug 26 11:22:33 UTC 2014

On 08/25/2014 10:06 PM, Brandon Logan wrote:
>> 2. Therefor, there should be some configuration to specifically enable
>> either version (not both) in case LBaaS is needed. In this case, the
>> other version is disabled (ie. a REST query for non-active version
>> should return a "not activated" error). Additionally, adding a
>> 'lb-version' command to return the version currently active seems like a
>> good user-facing idea. We should see how this doesn't negatively effect
>> the db migration process (for example, allowing read-only commands for
>> both versions?)
> A /version endpoint can be added for both v1 and v2 extensions and
> service plugins.  If it doesn't already exist, it would be nice if
> neutron had an endpoint that would return the list of loaded extensions
> and their versions.
There is 'neutron ext-list', but I'm not familiar enough with it or with
the REST API to say if we can use that.
>> 3. Another decision that's needed to be made is the syntax for v2. As
>> mentioned, the current new syntax is 'neutron lbaas-<object>-<command>'
>> (against the old 'lb-<object>-<action>'), keeping in mind that once v1
>> is deprecated, a syntax like 'lbv2-<object>-<action>' would be probably
>> unwanted. Is 'lbaas-<object>-<command>' okay with everyone?
> That is the reason we with with lbaas because lbv2 looks ugly and we'd
> be stuck with it for the lifetime of v2, unless we did another migration
> back to lb for it.  Which seemed wrong to do, since then we'd have to
> accept both lbv2 and lb commands, and then deprecate lbv2.
> I assume this also means you are fine with the prefix in the API
> resource of /lbaas as well then?
I don't mind, as long there is a similar mechanism which disables the
non-active REST API commands. Does anyone disagree?
>> 4. If we are going for different API between versions, appropriate
>> patches also need to be written for lbaas-related scripts and also
>> Tempest, and their maintainers should probably be notified.
> Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you mean by
> "different API between version."
The intention was that the change of the user-facing API also forces
changes on other levels - not only neutronclient needs to be modified
accordingly, but also tempest system tests, horizon interface regarding

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list