Open Stack

On 04/18/2016 04:48 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
<snip>
> 
> I guess at a high level my thinking was always, if nova-network isn't
> deprecated, and these APIs are broken when using Neutron, it's (mostly)
> trivial to add a proxy to fill those gaps (like my spec for
> os-virtual-interfaces). So then when people move from deprecated
> nova-network to neutron, all of their tooling doesn't start breaking.
> 
> In thinking about it another way, if we just say nova-network is
> deprecated again and therefore we have no incentive to make these APIs
> work in the Neutron case, and want to force people off them, then I can
> see that point.
> 
> It was different back in Havana when I was originally looking at this
> because Neutron adoption was very different. With the recent survey,
> however, it looks like nova-network is 7% of deployments now, and that's
> including non-production. So I concede that it's making less sense to
> put effort into making the APIs work with a proxy.

Right, I think in the Havana timeframe, things were very different. Part
of the rationale for full parity was that applications would be written
against nova-network, and smoothly transition to neutron. But with over
90% neutron, assuming someone is writing to the nova-network API and not
realizing it's the odd ball, I think is the wrong assumption.

The APIs that work, they are what they are, but we should not make any
more work.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net