Open Stack

Hi Adam,

My comments inline:

> 1. We shouldn't be looking at the current model and deciding which object
> is the root object, or what object to rename as a  "loadbalancer"... That's
> totally backwards! *We don't define which object is named the
> "loadbalancer" by looking for the root object -- we define which object is
> the root by looking for the object named "loadbalancer".* I had hoped that
> was clear from the JSON examples in our API proposal, but I think maybe
> there was too much focus on the object model chart, where this isn't nearly
> as clearly communicated.
>
2. As I believe I have also said before, if I'm using "<X> as a Service"
> then I expect to get back an object of type "<X>". I would be very
> frustrated/confused if, as a user, LBaaS returned me an object of type
> "VIP" when I POST a Create for my new load balancer. On this last point, I
> feel like I've said this enough times that I'm beating a dead horse...
>
I think we definitely should be looking at existing API/BBG proposal for
the root object.
The question about whether we need additional 'Loadbalancer' resource or
not is not a question about terminology, so (2) is not a valid argument.

What really matters in answering the question about 'loadbalancer' resource
is do we need multiple L2 ports per single loadbalancer. If we do - that
could be a justification to add it. Right now the common perception is that
this is not needed and hence, 'loadbalancer' is not required in the API or
obj model.

Thanks,
Eugene.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140508/7148b0f4/attachment.html>