Open Stack

Hi Carlos,



>  On May 9, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com>
>  wrote:
>
> Also we've heard objection to this approach several times from other core
> team members (this discussion has been going for more than half a year
> now), so I would suggest to move forward with single L2 port approach.
>
>
>     Objections to multiple ports per loadbalancer or objections to the
> Loadbalancer object itself?
>
>      If its the latter then you may have a valid argument by authority
> but its impossible to verify because these "core team members" are
> remaining silent through out all these discussions. We can't  be dissuaded
> due to FUD(Fear, Uncertainty and Doub)t  that these silent core team
> members will suddenly reject this discussion in the future. We aren't going
> to put our users at risk due to FUD.
>
I think you had a chance to hear this argument yourself (from several
different core members: Mark McClain, Salvatore Orlando, Kyle Mestery) on
those meetings we had in past 2 months.
I was advocating 'loadbalancer' (in it's extended version) once too,
receiving negative opinions as well.
In general this approach puts too much of control of a backend to user's
hands and this goes in opposite direction than neutron project.

If it's just about the name of the root object - VIP suits this role too,
so I'm fine with that. I also find VIP/Listeners model a bit more clearer
per definitions in our glossary.

Thanks,
Eugene.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140510/44854b26/attachment.html>