Open Stack

Yep, I'd like to know here, too--  as knowing the answer to this unblocks
implementation work for us.


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Brandon Logan <brandon.logan at rackspace.com
> wrote:

> Any core neutron people have a chance to give their opinions on this
> yet?
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
>
> On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:28 +0000, Buraschi, Andres wrote:
> > Thanks, Kyle. Great.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mestery at noironetworks.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 11:27 AM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Implementing new LBaaS API
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Brandon Logan <
> brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
> > That's my understanding as well, I think Brandon worded it perfectly.
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>



-- 
Stephen Balukoff
Blue Box Group, LLC
(800)613-4305 x807
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140610/56e01d2d/attachment.html>