Open Stack

Hi Brandon, thanks for your reply. Your explanation makes total sense to me. So, let's see what the consensus is. :)

Regards and have a nice day!
Andres

-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 6:28 PM
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Implementing new LBaaS API

Hi Andres,
I've assumed (and we know how assumptions work) that the deprecation would take place in Juno and after a cyle or two it would totally be removed from the code.  Even if #1 is the way to go, the old /vips resource would be deprecated in favor of /loadbalancers and /listeners.

I agree #2 is cleaner, but I don't want to start on an implementation (though I kind of already have) that will fail to be merged in because of the strategy.  The strategies are pretty different so one needs to be decided on.

As for where LBaaS is intended to end up, I don't want to speak for Kyle, so this is my understanding; It will end up outside of the Neutron code base but Neutron and LBaaS and other services will all fall under a Networking (or Network) program.  That is my understanding and I could be totally wrong.

Thanks,
Brandon

On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 20:30 +0000, Buraschi, Andres wrote:
> Hi Brandon, hi Kyle!
> I'm a bit confused about the deprecation (btw, thanks for sending this Brandon!), as I (wrongly) assumed #1 would be the chosen path for the new API implementation. I understand the proposal and #2 sounds actually cleaner. 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, Kyle, where is LBaaS functionality intended to end up, if long-term plans are to remove it from Neutron?
> 
> (Nit question, I must clarify)
> 
> Thank you!
> Andres
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:18 PM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Implementing new LBaaS API
> 
> Thanks for your feedback Kyle.  I will be at that meeting on Monday.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> 
> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 11:54 -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Brandon Logan 
> > <brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
> > > This is an LBaaS topic bud I'd like to get some Neutron Core 
> > > members to give their opinions on this matter so I've just 
> > > directed this to Neutron proper.
> > >
> > > The design for the new API and object model for LBaaS needs to be 
> > > locked down before the hackathon in a couple of weeks and there 
> > > are some questions that need answered.  This is pretty urgent to 
> > > come on to a decision on and to get a clear strategy defined so we 
> > > can actually do real code during the hackathon instead of wasting 
> > > some of that valuable time discussing this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Implementation must be backwards compatible
> > >
> > > There are 2 ways that have come up on how to do this:
> > >
> > > 1) New API and object model are created in the same extension and 
> > > plugin as the old.  Any API requests structured for the old API 
> > > will be translated/adapted to the into the new object model.
> > > PROS:
> > > -Only one extension and plugin
> > > -Mostly true backwards compatibility -Do not have to rename 
> > > unchanged resources and models
> > > CONS:
> > > -May end up being confusing to an end-user.
> > > -Separation of old api and new api is less clear -Deprecating and 
> > > removing old api and object model will take a bit more work -This 
> > > is basically API versioning the wrong way
> > >
> > > 2) A new extension and plugin are created for the new API and 
> > > object model.  Each API would live side by side.  New API would 
> > > need to have different names for resources and object models from 
> > > Old API resources and object models.
> > > PROS:
> > > -Clean demarcation point between old and new -No translation layer 
> > > needed -Do not need to modify existing API and object model, no 
> > > new bugs -Drivers do not need to be immediately modified -Easy to 
> > > deprecate and remove old API and object model later
> > > CONS:
> > > -Separate extensions and object model will be confusing to 
> > > end-users -Code reuse by copy paste since old extension and plugin 
> > > will be deprecated and removed.
> > > -This is basically API versioning the wrong way
> > >
> > > Now if #2 is chosen to be feasible and acceptable then there are a 
> > > number of ways to actually do that.  I won't bring those up until 
> > > a clear decision is made on which strategy above is the most acceptable.
> > >
> > Thanks for sending this out Brandon. I'm in favor of option #2 
> > above, especially considering the long-term plans to remove LBaaS 
> > from Neutron. That approach will help the eventual end goal there. I 
> > am also curious on what others think, and to this end, I've added 
> > this as an agenda item for the team meeting next Monday. Brandon, it 
> > would be great to get you there for the part of the meeting where 
> > we'll discuss this.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Kyle
> > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Brandon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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