On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Melanie Witt <melw...@yahoo-inc.com>wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > +1 from me as long as this wouldn't change anything for the EC2 API's > security groups support, which I assume it won't. > > Correct, it's unrelated to the ec2 api. > > We discussed briefly in the nova meeting today and there was consensus > that removing the standalone associate/disassociate actions should happen. > > Now the question is whether to keep the server create piece and not remove > the extension entirely. The concern is about a delay in the newly > provisioned instance being associated with the desired security groups. > With the extension, the instance gets the desired security groups before > the instance is active (I think). Without the extension, the client would > receive the active instance and then call neutron to associate it with the > desired security groups. > > Would such a delay in associating with security groups be a problem? > I think we should keep the capability to set the security group on instance creation, so those who care about this sort of race condition can avoid if they want to. +1 to removing the associate/disassociate actions though Chris
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
