Hi Craig, Implementation-specific options are not exposed through the API, or otherwise it would be inconsistent, given that we are moving to a flavor-based approach of specifying service requirements where implementation is completely hidden from the user.
Thanks, Eugene. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:24 AM, IWAMOTO Toshihiro <iwam...@valinux.co.jp>wrote: > At Wed, 14 May 2014 10:18:29 -0700, > Stephen Balukoff wrote: > > > > [1 <multipart/alternative (7bit)>] > > [1.1 <text/plain; UTF-8 (7bit)>] > > Hi Craig, > > > > I'm attaching the latest object model diagram as discussed with the RAX > > team last night, Samuel and Eugene. Note that we don't necessarily have > > HP's blessing on this model yet, nor do we have Neutron core developer > buy > > in. But in any case, here it is. > > Sorry for jumping into a meta-argument, > but what the LBaaS community needs to do first is to figure out how to > make the neutron community agree on a LBaaS proposal. > On the other hand, the neutron community (or the core?) needs to make > it clear that what criteria or process is required to approve some > LBaaS idea (obj. model, API, whatsoever). > > > I'm sorry to say (again) that not much people have energy to follow > and check out small differences in those large pictures of LBaaS > object models. > > -- > IWAMOTO Toshihiro > > _______________________________________________ > 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
