On 06/18/2012 09:23 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Gary Kotton <gkot...@redhat.com <mailto:gkot...@redhat.com>> wrote:On 06/18/2012 07:36 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Gary Kotton <gkot...@redhat.com <mailto:gkot...@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi, Over the last few weeks I have been trying to add a patch that will enable Quantum to make use of the common configuration interface provided by the openstack common library. The task is proving very challenging. At the moment we have the following: 1. OVS and Linux bridge agents using local conf data strcuture (via the cfg API) [reviewed and approved] 2. Quantum service using global cfg.CONF [in review] The problem with the above review is that we have yet to get a concensus on what we want to do. Do we want to merge the plugin.ini configuration files into the quantum configuration file? If so then I feel that we are able to move forward. If not I need to invest time and address the current review comments. These are valid if and only if we decide to remain with the separate in files. I am in favor of us moving to one configuration file if possible. I too am in favor of moving to one configuration file, and we've had a long-standing bug in quantum to do so. Is there a particular review comment of someone expressing concern with this approach? If so, I'd like to see the comment to better understand the concern, otherwise, I think we should move forward with the consolidation.We are currently stuck on the implementation of the method find_config_file. I did not address this as the intention was to move to one common configuration file. Today, following comments, I made a few changes today to address this. Sadly there have broken the tests for the plugins. I will revert and hopefully we can get a consensus to move forward to a unified configuration file. Can we discuss this at the meeting this evening?Yes, let's discuss this later today. To be clear, is the contention in the review over combining (plugins.ini and quantum.conf) or collapsing plugin-specific config files into quantum.conf?
The contention of the review is the search path for the quantum plugin ini files. I do not think that this is critical due to the following reasons: 1. There are additional changes we should make once the initial configuration support is in. The first is to move the paste config out of the configuration file. The second is to ensure that the plugin ini files are read into the global configuration data structure (this is where we will ensure that all of the paths are inline). 2. We have a working solution for setups and unit tests. In my opinion it is better to have fewer and isolated changes instead of huge patches that take forever to get approved (as in this case)
This morning I submitted a patch for devstack that supports all of the above. I hope that it does not wait endlessly for reviews.
Thanks Gary
Dan Thanks Garydan My plan is to do the following (comments will be greatly appreciated) - each in a separate task to try and keep the changes to a minimum: 1. Finally get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8101/ finished 2. Move the paste configuration to a separate file 3. If relevant merge the plugin.ini into the common configuration file. Thanks Gary-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack<https://launchpad.net/%7Enetstack> Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net <mailto:netstack@lists.launchpad.net> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack <https://launchpad.net/%7Enetstack> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dan Wendlandt Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com <http://www.nicira.com> twitter: danwendlandt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Wendlandt Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com <http://www.nicira.com> twitter: danwendlandt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
