Open Stack

Hi Yair,

On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 07:47 -0400, Yair Fried wrote:
> I would like to add a question to John's list
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Schwarz" <jschwarz at redhat.com>
> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:22:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax	additions/changes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > LBaaS...
> 
> 
> 5. If we accept #3 and #4 to mean that the python-client API and CLI must be 
> changed/updated and so does Tempest clients and tests, then what about other 
> projects consuming the Neutron API? How are Heat and Ceilometer going to be 
> affected by this change?

That's a good question about Heat and Ceilometer, and honestly it hasn't
been discussed.  It definitely should be something that should be
researched.  I think once the incubator dust has settled and we know
what goes where, we can dive into this further.  Thanks for bringing it
up.

> 
> Yair
> 
> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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