On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Jay Pipes wrote:
I wasn't in YVR, which explains why I's never heard of it. There's a number
of misconceptions in the above document about the placement service that
don't seem to have been addressed. I'm wondering if its worth revisiting the
topic in Denver with the Cinder team or whether the Cinder team isn't
interested in working with the placement service?
It was also discussed as part of the reshaper spec and implemented
for future use by a potential fast forward upgrade tool:
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/rocky/approved/reshape-provider-tree.html#direct-placement
https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/api/openstack/placement/direct.py
I agree, talking to Cinder some more in denver about use of
placement, either over HTTP or direct, whatever form, is good.
But I don't think any of that should impact the naming situation.
It's placement now, and placement is not really any less unique than
a lot of the other words we use, the direct situation is a very
special and edge case (likely in containers anyway, so naming not as
much of a big deal). Changing the name, again, is painful. Please,
let's not do it.
--
Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶ https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
