Open Stack

Hi Craig,

Implementation-specific options are not exposed through the API, or
otherwise it would be inconsistent, given that we are moving to a
flavor-based approach of specifying service requirements where
implementation is completely hidden from the user.

Thanks,
Eugene.


On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:24 AM, IWAMOTO Toshihiro <iwamoto at valinux.co.jp>wrote:

> At Wed, 14 May 2014 10:18:29 -0700,
> Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> >
> > [1  <multipart/alternative (7bit)>]
> > [1.1  <text/plain; UTF-8 (7bit)>]
> > Hi Craig,
> >
> > I'm attaching the latest object model diagram as discussed with the RAX
> > team last night, Samuel and Eugene. Note that we don't necessarily have
> > HP's blessing on this model yet, nor do we have Neutron core developer
> buy
> > in.  But in any case, here it is.
>
> Sorry for jumping into a meta-argument,
> but what the LBaaS community needs to do first is to figure out how to
> make the neutron community agree on a LBaaS proposal.
> On the other hand, the neutron community (or the core?) needs to make
> it clear that what criteria or process is required to approve some
> LBaaS idea (obj. model, API, whatsoever).
>
>
> I'm sorry to say (again) that not much people have energy to follow
> and check out small differences in those large pictures of LBaaS
> object models.
>
> --
> IWAMOTO Toshihiro
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140515/cb58e406/attachment.html>