On Thu, Oct 16 2014, Jim Mankovich wrote: > This structure would provide the ability for a consumer to do a ceilometer > resource list using the Ironic Node ID as the Resource ID to get all the > sensors > in a given platform. The consumer would then then iterate over each of the > sensors to get the samples it wanted. In order to retain the information as > to > who provide the sensors, I would like to propose that a standard > "sensor_provider" field be added to the resource_metadata for every sensor > where > the "sensor_provider" field would have a string value indicating the driver > that > provided the sensor information. This is where the string "ipmi", or a > vendor specific string would be specified. > > I understand that this proposed change is not backward compatible with the > existing naming, but I don't really see a good solution that would retain > backward compatibility.
I think it's a good idea to drop that suffix in the resource id, as long as we're sure a node can't have several IPMI sources. :) -- Julien Danjou -- Free Software hacker -- http://julien.danjou.info
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
