Does anyone have any thoughts/objections on the blueprint I posted for allowing clients to pass capability-requests through tags? I'm planning on starting implementation soon, so if people think this is a bad idea I'd rather know before I start coding!
Blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/use-metadata-tags-for-capabilities <https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/use-metadata-tags-for-capabilities> Wiki: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/use-metadata-tags-for-capabilities <https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/use-metadata-tags-for-capabilities>And a quick TLDR: API clients need a way to request e.g. placement of machines near each other / near volumes, or that a volume be created with a particular RAID level, or that a machine be created in a HIPAA compliant environment. (This is complementary to the work on hierarchical zones & URL naming, I believe) I propose using the instance tags for this, e.g. specifying openstack:near=vol-000001 when creating an instance to request locating the instance 'close to' that volume. By default these requests would be best-effort and ignored-if-unknown; if the client wants to specify that something is required and should fail if not understood or not satisfiable, they could use a "+" e.g. openstack:+location=*.dc1.north.rackspace.com Controversially (?), this would not be supported for clients using the AWS API, because tags can only be specified once the instance has already been created. Feedback appreciated! Justin
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
