Open Stack

On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 09:50 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:

> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "the existing API is confusing and
> difficult to use" one of the major complaints with it (as voiced in
> the IRC meeting, say on April 10th in IRC, starting around... I
> dunno... 14:13 GMT)?  If that's the case, then the user experience
> seems like an important concern, and possibly trumps some vaguely
> defined "project direction" which apparently doesn't take this into
> account if it's vetoing an approach which is more easily done /
> understood by the user.

+1 Stephen

This is what the API we are proposing accomplishes.  It is not
confusing.  Does having a root object of VIP work? Yes, but anything can
be made to work.  It's more about what makes sense.  To me going with an
API similar to the existing one does not address this issue at all.
Also, what happened to a totally brand new API and object model in
neutron V3?  I thought that was still on the table, and its the perfect
time to create a new load balancer API, backwards compatibility is not
expected.

I'd also like to ask why it seems to not matter at all if most (if not
all) operators like an API proposal?

Thanks,
Brandon Logan