H Kishan, I implemented point 1, even though I had some doubts at what you meant. If you have a minute please look at the last commit in acl-item-cidrs again. I will work on the migration code as time falls free.
thanks, Daan On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > thanks, will find some time to add those. > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com> > wrote: >> Daan, >> I looked at the code in acl-item-cidrs. Persisting cidrs in separate table >> looks good. >> Pending items: >> >> 1. All references to NetworkACLItemVO.getSourceCidrList() should call >> NetworkACLItemDao.loadCidrs. Cidr list won't be available otherwise. >> 2. Migration code should be added to upgrade path to move existing cidrs to >> new network_acl_item_cidr table >> >> Regards, >> kishan >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 February 2014 8:33 PM >>> To: dev; Kishan Kavala >>> Subject: Re: cidrs in acls >>> >>> Kishan, >>> >>> Can you have a look at the branch acl-item-cidrs. I made some code to >>> handle the cidrs from a separate table. I hardly think this can be enough >>> and >>> would like to create a checklist on what I need to do next. >>> (item one is use the new transaction model;) >>> >>> thanks, >>> Daan >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Daan Hoogland >>> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > That was what I thought as well. What was the retionale to join them >>> > into one field? >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> Daan, >>> >> Similar to firewall_rules_cidrs, separate table can be used to store >>> >> acl >>> cidrs. Maybe in network_acl_item_cidrs. >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> kishan >>> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >>> >>> Sent: Friday, 17 January 2014 1:05 AM >>> >>> To: Kishan Kavala >>> >>> Cc: dev >>> >>> Subject: cidrs in acls >>> >>> >>> >>> H Kishan, >>> >>> >>> >>> I see you implemented CLOUDSTACK-763. it merges a lot of cidrs into >>> one field. >>> >>> The api doesn't check the field length. I enlarged the field in the >>> >>> create table statement to 2048 for the 4.3 branch. Can you help me >>> >>> think about a more solid solution, please. It seems to me those cidrs >>> shouldn't be joint into one field. >>> >>> >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Daan >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daan > > > > -- > Daan -- Daan
