On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Dan Smith <d...@danplanet.com> wrote: >> 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. objecty and versoined > > --Dan > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
