Open Stack

>If we add our own database for internal stuff, we go back to the same
problem of allowing bad design.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. A JSON blob that only
one driver knows how to interpret is worse than a vendor table. They both
are specific to one driver but at least with a vendor table you can have DB
migrations, integrity, column queries, etc. Additionally, the vendor table
with extra features exposed via an API extension makes it more clear to the
API caller what is vendor specific.

Can you elaborate what you mean by bad design?
On Nov 4, 2015 3:58 PM, "Shraddha Pandhe" <spandhe.openstack at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Armando M. <armamig at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4 November 2015 at 13:21, Shraddha Pandhe <spandhe.openstack at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Salvatore,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you that arbitrary JSON blobs will
>>> make IPAM much more powerful. Some other projects already do things like
>>> this.
>>>
>>> e.g. In Ironic, node has driver_info, which is JSON. it also has an
>>> 'extras' arbitrary JSON field. This allows us to put any information in
>>> there that we think is important for us.
>>>
>>
>> I personally feel that relying on json blobs is not only dangerously
>> affecting portability, but it causes us to bloat the business logic, and
>> forcing us to be doing less efficient when querying/filtering data
>>
>
>> Most importantly though, I feel it's like abdicating our responsibility
>> to do a good design job.
>>
>
>
> How does it affect portability?
>
> I don't think it forces us to do anything. 'Allows'? Maybe. But that can
> be solved. Before making any design decisions for internal
> feature-requests, we should first check with the community if its a wider
> use-case. If it is a wider use-case, we should collaborate and fix it
> upstream the right way.
>
> I feel that, its impossible for the community to know all the use-cases.
> Even if they knew, it would be impossible to incorporate all of them. I
> filed a bug few months ago about multiple gateway support for subnets.
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1464361
>
> It was marked as 'Wont fix' because nobody else had this use-case. Adding
> and maintaining a patch to support this is super risky as it breaks the
> APIs. A JSON blob would have helped me here.
>
> I have another use-case. For multi-ip support for Ironic, we want to
> divide the IP allocation ranges into two: Static IPs and extra IPs. The
> static IPs are pre-configured IPs for Ironic inventory whereas extra IPs
> are the multi-ips. Nobody else in the community has this use-case.
>
> If we add our own database for internal stuff, we go back to the same
> problem of allowing bad design.
>
>
>
>> Ultimately, we should be able to identify how to model these extensions
>> you're thinking of both conceptually and logically.
>>
>
> I would agree with that. If theres an effort going on in this direction,
> ill be happy to join. Without this, people like us with unique use-cases
> are stuck with having patches.
>
>
>
>>
>> I couldn't care less if other projects use it, but we ended up using in
>> Neutron too, and since I lost this battle time and time again, all I am
>> left with is this rant :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hoping to get some positive feedback from API and DB lieutenants too.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Salvatore Orlando <
>>> salv.orlando at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arbitrary blobs are a powerful tools to circumvent limitations of an
>>>> API, as well as other constraints which might be imposed for versioning or
>>>> portability purposes.
>>>> The parameters that should end up in such blob are typically specific
>>>> for the target IPAM driver (to an extent they might even identify a
>>>> specific driver to use), and therefore an API consumer who knows what
>>>> backend is performing IPAM can surely leverage it.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore this would make a lot of sense, assuming API portability and
>>>> not leaking backend details are not a concern.
>>>> The Neutron team API & DB lieutenants will be able to provide more
>>>> input on this regard.
>>>>
>>>> In this case other approaches such as a vendor specific extension are
>>>> not a solution - assuming your granularity level is the allocation pool;
>>>> indeed allocation pools are not first-class neutron resources, and it is
>>>> not therefore possible to have APIs which associate vendor specific
>>>> properties to allocation pools.
>>>>
>>>> Salvatore
>>>>
>>>> On 4 November 2015 at 21:46, Shraddha Pandhe <
>>>> spandhe.openstack at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a small question/suggestion about IPAM.
>>>>>
>>>>> With IPAM, we are allowing users to have their own IPAM drivers so
>>>>> that they can manage IP allocation. The problem is, the new ipam tables in
>>>>> the database have the same columns as the old tables. So, as a user, if I
>>>>> want to have my own logic for ip allocation, I can't actually get any help
>>>>> from the database. Whereas, if we had an arbitrary json blob in the ipam
>>>>> tables, I could put any useful information/tags there, that can help me for
>>>>> allocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g. If I want to create multiple allocation pools in a subnet and use
>>>>> them for different purposes, I would need some sort of tag for each
>>>>> allocation pool for identification. Right now, there is no scope for doing
>>>>> something like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts? If there are any other way to solve the problem, please
>>>>> let me know
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20151104/32260dc3/attachment.html>