On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 02:51 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What about this instead?
>>>
>>> POST /v2.0/subnets
>>>
>>> {
>>> 'network_id': 'meh',
>>> 'gateway_ip_template': '*.*.*.1'
>>> 'prefix_len': 24,
>>> 'pool_id': 'some_pool'
>>> }
>>>
>>> At least that way it's clear the gateway attribute is not an IP, but a
>>> template/string instead?
>>
>>
>> I thought about doing *s but in the world of Classless Inter-Domain
>> Routing where not all networks are /24, /16, or /8 it seemed a bit
>> imprecise. But, maybe that doesn't matter.
>
>
> Understood.
>
>> I think the more important difference with your proposal here is that
>> it is passed as a new attribute called 'gateway_ip_template'. I don't
>> think that attribute would ever be sent back to the user. Is it ok to
>> have write-only attributes? Is everyone comfortable with that?
>
>
> I don't see anything wrong with attributes that are only in the request. I
> mean, we have attributes that are only in the response (things like status,
> for example).
>
> Looking at the EC2 API, they support "write-only attributes" as well, for
> just this purpose:
>
> http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/APIReference/API_RunInstances.html
>
> The MaxCount and MinCount attributes are not in the response but are in the
> request. Same thing for Nova's POST /servers REST API (min_count,
> max_count).
Makes sense. I think I like this "gateway_ip_template" attribute then
for this purpose.
Carl
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
