> I'm of the opinion that the scheduler should use objects, for all the > reasons that Nova uses objects, but that they should not be Nova > objects. Ultimately what the scheduler needs is a concept of capacity, > allocations, and locality of resources. But the way those are modeled > doesn't need to be tied to how Nova does it, and once the scope expands > to include Cinder it may quickly turn out to be limiting to hold onto > Nova objects.
Yeah, my response to the original question was going to be something like: "If the scheduler was staying in Nova, it would use NovaObjects like the rest of Nova. Long-term Gantt should use whatever it wants and the API between it and Nova will be something other than RPC and thus something other than NovaObject anyway." I think the point you're making here is that the models used for communication between Nova and Gantt should be objecty, regardless of what the backing implementation is on either side. I totally agree with that. --Dan _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
