Open Stack

Thanks Trevor. Replies inline!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Vardeman [mailto:trevor.vardeman at RACKSPACE.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 7:30 PM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] RackSpace API review (multi-
> call)
> 
> Vijay,
> 
> Comments in-line, hope I can clear some of this up for you :)
> 
> -Trevor
> 
> On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 13:16 +0000, Vijay Venkatachalam wrote:
> > I am expecting to be more active on community on the LBaaS front.
> >
> > May be reviewing and picking-up a few items to  work as well.
> >
> > I had a look at the proposal. Seeing Single & Multi-Call approach for
> > each workflow makes it easy to understand.
> >
> > Thanks for the clear documentation, it is welcoming to review :-). I was not
> allowed to comment on WorkFlow doc, can you enable comments?
> >
> > The single-call approach essentially creates the global pool/VIP. Once
> VIP/Pool is created using single call, are they reusable in multi-call?
> > For example: Can a pool created for HTTP endpoint/loadbalancer be used
> in HTTPS endpoint LB where termination occurs as well?
> 
> From what I remember discussing with my team (being a developer under
> Jorge's umbrella) There is a 1-M relationship between load balancer and
> pool.  Also, the protocol is specified on the Load Balancer, not the pool,
> meaning you could expose TCP traffic via one Load Balancer to a pool, and
> HTTP traffic via another Load Balancer to that same pool.
> This is easily modified such
> 

Ok. Thanks! Should there be a separate use case for covering this (If it is not already present)?

> >
> > Also, would it be useful to include PUT as a single call? I see PUT only for
> POOL not for LB.
> > A user who started with single-call  POST, might like to continue to use the
> same approach for PUT/update as well.
> 
> On the fifth page of the document found here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mTfkkdnPAd4tWOMZAdwHEx7IuFZ
> DULjG9bTmWyXe-zo/edit
> There is a PUT detailed for a Load Balancer.  There should be support for PUT
> on any parent object assuming the fields one would update are not read-
> only.
> 

My mistake, didn't explain properly.
I see PUT of loadbalancer containing only loadbalancer properties. 
I was wondering if it makes sense for PUT of LOADBALANCER to contain 
pool+members also. Similar to the POST payload.

Also, will delete of loadbalancer  DELETE the pool/vip, if they are no more 
referenced by another loadbalancer.

Or, they have to be cleaned up separately?

> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vijay V.
> >