Open Stack

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 07:59 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 10/24/2014 03:29 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
> > On 09:11 Thu 23 Oct     , Flavio Percoco wrote:
> >> According to the use-cases explained in this thread (also in the emails
> >> from John and Mathieu) this is something that'd be good having. I'm
> >> looking forward to seeing the driver completed.
> >>
> >> As John mentioned in his email, we should probably sync again in K-1 to
> >> see if there's been some progress on the bricks side and the other
> >> things this driver depends on. If there hasn't, we should probably get
> >> rid of it and add it back once it can actually be full-featured.
> > 
> > I'm unsure if Brick [1] will be completed in time. With that in mind, even if
> > we were to deprecate the glance driver for Kilo, Brick will likely be done by
> > then and we would just be removing the deprecation in L, assuming the driver is
> > completed in L. I think that would be confusing to users. It's unfortunate this
> > was merged in the current state, but I would just say leave things as is with
> > intentions at the latest to have the driver completed in L. If we're afraid no
> > one is going to complete the driver, deprecate it now.
> > 
> > [1] - https://github.com/hemna/cinder-brick
> 
> Thanks, Mike. This is great feedback.
> 
> I wonder how strong is the dependency between the cinder driver and
> bricks. I mean, it'd be cool if we could complete the implementation in
> a perhaps not so optimized way - on top of cinder's API? - and then use
> the bricks library when it's done.

I fear my mention of Brick may have thrown things out of whack here. 
Frankly for now I think that whole thing should be ignored as it
pertains to this topic.  We've made the mistake of deferring things
based on that whole idea in the past and it hasn't gone well. 

Glance shouldn't need most of the stuff that's going on in there anyway
I don't think.  I think Flavio keyed in on the main point IMO "how
strong of a dependency", ideally I hope the answer is "not very".  The
other thing about this is my conversations with folks in the past were
that Glance should be kept pretty darn light in terms of any data path
type stuff.  We really should intend for it to be not much more than a
registry and serve as a conduit.  If that's changed or I'm wrong on that
feel free to shout, but previous conversations with Mark suggested that
moving things like initiators and targets in to Glance was not ideal
(and I agree). 

> 
> Thoughts on the above? It sounds hacky, I know. :)

Yes, please, let's move forward with it like we were saying earlier. 
There's still a number of gaps and some hand waving I think so really
it's something I think we just need to dive into.

> 
> Cheers,
> Flavio
> 
> -- 
> @flaper87
> Flavio Percoco
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev