[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Implementing new LBaaS API
Susanne Balle
sleipnir012 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 11 15:57:59 UTC 2014
Do we know who has an opinion? If so maybe we can reach out to them
directly and ask them to comment.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Brandon Logan <brandon.logan at rackspace.com>
wrote:
> Well we got a few opinions, but not enough understanding of the two
> options to make an informed decision. It was requested that the core
> reviewers respond to this thread with their opinions.
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
>
> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 13:22 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140611/4a5b789a/attachment.html>
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list