On 29 June 2015 at 15:23, Dulko, Michal <michal.du...@intel.com> wrote:
> There’s also some similar situations when we actually don’t lock on > resources. For example – a cgsnapshot may get deleted while creating a > consistencygroup from it. > > > > From my perspective it seems best to have atomic state changes and > state-based exclusion in API. We would need some kind of > currently_used_to_create_snapshot/volums/consistencygroups states to > achieve that. Then we would be also able to return VolumeIsBusy exceptions > so retrying a request would be on the user side. > > > I'd agree, except that gives quite a big behaviour change in the tenant-facing API, which will break clients and scripts. Not sure how to square that circle... I'd say V3 API except Mike might kill me...
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
