Any core neutron people have a chance to give their opinions on this yet? Thanks, Brandon
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:28 +0000, Buraschi, Andres wrote: > Thanks, Kyle. Great. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kyle Mestery [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 11:27 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Implementing new LBaaS API > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Brandon Logan <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> > wrote: > > Hi Andres, > > I've assumed (and we know how assumptions work) that the deprecation > > would take place in Juno and after a cyle or two it would totally be > > removed from the code. Even if #1 is the way to go, the old /vips > > resource would be deprecated in favor of /loadbalancers and /listeners. > > > > I agree #2 is cleaner, but I don't want to start on an implementation > > (though I kind of already have) that will fail to be merged in because > > of the strategy. The strategies are pretty different so one needs to > > be decided on. > > > > As for where LBaaS is intended to end up, I don't want to speak for > > Kyle, so this is my understanding; It will end up outside of the > > Neutron code base but Neutron and LBaaS and other services will all > > fall under a Networking (or Network) program. That is my > > understanding and I could be totally wrong. > > > That's my understanding as well, I think Brandon worded it perfectly. > > > Thanks, > > Brandon > > > > On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 20:30 +0000, Buraschi, Andres wrote: > >> Hi Brandon, hi Kyle! > >> I'm a bit confused about the deprecation (btw, thanks for sending this > >> Brandon!), as I (wrongly) assumed #1 would be the chosen path for the new > >> API implementation. I understand the proposal and #2 sounds actually > >> cleaner. > >> > >> Just out of curiosity, Kyle, where is LBaaS functionality intended to end > >> up, if long-term plans are to remove it from Neutron? > >> > >> (Nit question, I must clarify) > >> > >> Thank you! > >> Andres > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:18 PM > >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Implementing new LBaaS API > >> > >> Thanks for your feedback Kyle. I will be at that meeting on Monday. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Brandon > >> > >> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 11:54 -0500, Kyle Mestery wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Brandon Logan > >> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote: > >> > > This is an LBaaS topic bud I'd like to get some Neutron Core > >> > > members to give their opinions on this matter so I've just > >> > > directed this to Neutron proper. > >> > > > >> > > The design for the new API and object model for LBaaS needs to be > >> > > locked down before the hackathon in a couple of weeks and there > >> > > are some questions that need answered. This is pretty urgent to > >> > > come on to a decision on and to get a clear strategy defined so > >> > > we can actually do real code during the hackathon instead of > >> > > wasting some of that valuable time discussing this. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Implementation must be backwards compatible > >> > > > >> > > There are 2 ways that have come up on how to do this: > >> > > > >> > > 1) New API and object model are created in the same extension and > >> > > plugin as the old. Any API requests structured for the old API > >> > > will be translated/adapted to the into the new object model. > >> > > PROS: > >> > > -Only one extension and plugin > >> > > -Mostly true backwards compatibility -Do not have to rename > >> > > unchanged resources and models > >> > > CONS: > >> > > -May end up being confusing to an end-user. > >> > > -Separation of old api and new api is less clear -Deprecating and > >> > > removing old api and object model will take a bit more work -This > >> > > is basically API versioning the wrong way > >> > > > >> > > 2) A new extension and plugin are created for the new API and > >> > > object model. Each API would live side by side. New API would > >> > > need to have different names for resources and object models from > >> > > Old API resources and object models. > >> > > PROS: > >> > > -Clean demarcation point between old and new -No translation > >> > > layer needed -Do not need to modify existing API and object > >> > > model, no new bugs -Drivers do not need to be immediately > >> > > modified -Easy to deprecate and remove old API and object model > >> > > later > >> > > CONS: > >> > > -Separate extensions and object model will be confusing to > >> > > end-users -Code reuse by copy paste since old extension and > >> > > plugin will be deprecated and removed. > >> > > -This is basically API versioning the wrong way > >> > > > >> > > Now if #2 is chosen to be feasible and acceptable then there are > >> > > a number of ways to actually do that. I won't bring those up > >> > > until a clear decision is made on which strategy above is the most > >> > > acceptable. > >> > > > >> > Thanks for sending this out Brandon. I'm in favor of option #2 > >> > above, especially considering the long-term plans to remove LBaaS > >> > from Neutron. That approach will help the eventual end goal there. > >> > I am also curious on what others think, and to this end, I've added > >> > this as an agenda item for the team meeting next Monday. Brandon, > >> > it would be great to get you there for the part of the meeting > >> > where we'll discuss this. > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > Kyle > >> > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Brandon > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > 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 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
