Replies inline.
Cheers,
Salvatore
>From the code it seems the implementation allows for defining new resources,
>extending quantum core API resources, and adding actions to Core API
>resources. It was my understanding that in the NetStack meeting we kind of
>agreed extensions will not alter
I agree with Troy that we should focus on consistency.
Ideally API users are not aware of which plugin the Quantum service is running;
indeed the might totally ignore the fact that Quantum is being powered by a
plugin.
Therefore the asynchronous/synchronous behaviour of an operation should be
co
I completely agree on freezing the API specification and label it as 'v1'. If
we don't do that, it would be like chasing a moving target.
Salvatore
From: Somik Behera [mailto:so...@nicira.com]
Sent: 31 July 2011 17:53
To: Salvatore Orlando
Cc: Dan Wendlandt; Santhosh Kumar M; netstack@lists.laun
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Salvatore Orlando <
salvatore.orla...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> Review: Needs Fixing
> Hi Santhosh!
> Thanks for this important contribution to the Quantum project.
>
> >From the code it seems the implementation allows for defining new
> resources, extending quantum
I agree with removing portcount tests until we agree on the specification, I
have some comments that I'll try to send out next week regarding the API
spec alignment. I would say, after this alignment, we should "freeze" the
API spec wiki and create a new wiki or future v2 work.
Thanks,
Somik
On S
5 matches
Mail list logo
