[openstack-dev] [Ironic] Do we need an IntrospectionInterface?
stendulker at gmail.com
Mon Dec 1 03:40:56 UTC 2014
+1 for separate interface.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes <lucasagomes at gmail.com>
> Thanks for putting it up Dmitry. I think the idea is fine too, I
> understand that people may want to use in-band discovery for drivers like
> iLO or DRAC and having those on a separated interface allow us to composite
> a driver to do it (which is ur use case 2. ).
> So, +1.
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Imre Farkas <ifarkas at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2014 02:20 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>> As our state machine and discovery discussion proceeds, I'd like to ask
>>> your opinion on whether we need an IntrospectionInterface
>>> (DiscoveryInterface?). Current proposal  suggests adding a method for
>>> initiating a discovery to the ManagementInterface. IMO it's not 100%
>>> correct, because:
>>> 1. It's not management. We're not changing anything.
>>> 2. I'm aware that some folks want to use discoverd-based discovery 
>>> even for DRAC and ILO (e.g. for vendor-specific additions that can't be
>>> implemented OOB).
>>> Any ideas?
>>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100951/
>>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135605/
>> Hi Dmitry,
>> I see the value in using the composability of our driver interfaces, so I
>> vote for having a separate IntrospectionInterface. Otherwise we wouldn't
>> allow users to use eg. the DRAC driver with an in-band but more powerful hw
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev