Based on discussion [1], there does not seem to be much of a desire for this initiative, especially in light of the cost involved to embrace this type of framework.
[1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_drivers/2015/neutron_drivers.2015-12-01-15.00.log.html ** Changed in: neutron Status: Triaged => Won't Fix -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yahoo! Engineering Team, which is subscribed to neutron. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1508384 Title: QoS proxy functions Status in neutron: Won't Fix Bug description: The current QoS API is structured so that rules that are added to the API need to be added to the neutron client as well. I propose the use of proxy functions in neutron that determine which functions to use based on the rule type retrieved using the rule_id or specified through the command line. These proxy functions will take the rule_id or rule_type, policy_id and a list containing the rest of the command line arguments and send them to the corresponding function of that rule. This would allow new rules to be added to the QoS API without needing to update the neutron client. i.e replace: qos-bandwidth-limit-rule-create <policy-id> with qos-rule-create <rule-type> <policy-id> and replace: qos-bandwidth-limit-rule-update <rule-id> <policy-id> with qos-rule-update <rule-id> <policy-id> Further discussion and ideas would be appreciated. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1508384/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team Post to : yahoo-eng-team@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
