Open Stack

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:53:55AM -0700, Dan Smith wrote:
> > Hmm, that is not right. There's no intention to remove the vif_driver
> > parameter itself. We were supposed to merely deprecate the various
> > legacy VIF driver implementations in Nova, not remove the ability
> > to use 3rd party ones.
> 
> I'm pretty sure it was deprecated specifically for that reason. Once we
> stopped having the need to provide that as a way to control which
> implementation was used, we (IIRC) marked it as deprecated with the
> intention of removing it. We've been on a path to remove as many of the
> "provide your own class here" plugin points as possible in recent cycles.

I don't see an issue with allowing people to configure 3rd party impl
for the VIF driver, provided we don't claim that the VIF driver API
contract is stable, same way we don't claim virt driver API is stable.
It lets users have a solution to enable custom NIC functionality while
waiting for Nova to officially support it. If we did remove it, then
users could still subclass the main libvirt driver class and make
it use their custom VIF driver, so they'd get to the same place just
with an extra inconvenient hoop to jump through. So is it worth removing
vif_driver ?

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|