Open Stack

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Dan Smith <dms at danplanet.com> wrote:
>> I'm of the opinion that the scheduler should use objects, for all the
>> reasons that Nova uses objects, but that they should not be Nova
>> objects.  Ultimately what the scheduler needs is a concept of capacity,
>> allocations, and locality of resources.  But the way those are modeled
>> doesn't need to be tied to how Nova does it, and once the scope expands
>> to include Cinder it may quickly turn out to be limiting to hold onto
>> Nova objects.
>
> Yeah, my response to the original question was going to be something like:
>
> "If the scheduler was staying in Nova, it would use NovaObjects like the
> rest of Nova. Long-term Gantt should use whatever it wants and the API
> between it and Nova will be something other than RPC and thus something
> other than NovaObject anyway."

++

>
> I think the point you're making here is that the models used for
> communication between Nova and Gantt should be objecty, regardless of
> what the backing implementation is on either side. I totally agree with
> that.

objecty and versoined

>
> --Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev