Open Stack

Hi, Alexey

I plan to split the implementation to several steps, because it will take
weeks to complete. I'm afraid it would be too big a patch to review if I
submit all changes in one patch set.

Instead I want to get comments as earlier as possible. Each submit will be
covered by additional unit test and keep backward compatibility.

Detail replies inline.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:51 PM Weyl, Alexey (Nokia - IL) <
alexey.weyl at nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi Yujun,
>
> Good job! This is a very important change for Vitrage.
>
> I have a couple of questions please:
> 1. Why do we want to create a new datasource ‘static’ and not rename the
> current ‘static_physical’ datasource and change it to work with the new
> format?
>
I don't want to break it during the evolution.

> 2. How are you planning to use the old 'static_physical' datasource  as a
> proxy if you said that you want to remove it?
>
Good point. Any suggestion on how we hide the deprecated modules? Move it
as a submodule in new module.

> 3. What kind of merge is needed in the evaluator?
>
Parsing of `definition` section would be a common module for both evaluator
and static data source

> 4. I saw the implementation of the driver.py in static, and it doesn't do
> anything at the moment? (if you are still working on one of the patches
> then please market it as -1 in the code-review that we will know that you
> are still working on it.
>
Yes, skeleton is skeleton. Since I'm working remotely with vitrage team. I
want to keep you updated on the progress. Still, it is complete with unit
test and backward compatibility and will reduce further review work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161115/791f2f48/attachment.html>