I don't particular like saying that picking a Guru is based solely on that criteria. It should be much looser than that. If the problem you are trying to fix is two Gurus implement the same network then we need to set back a bit. I'd like Alex or Chiradeep to weigh in on this. Currently setupNetwork returns a list of networks that were created. I've looked at the code and every single invocation to setupNetwork expects (and mostly hard code) a response of one network.
So for a more proper fix I'd say that the API of setupNetwork should just return Network. Additionally NetworkGuru should have a canHandle/canDesign method on the interface that returns a priority/score (similar to what was just done in the storage strategies). Then the orchestrator can find the best match and then use the correct guru. Now the consolidated logic that you've done should be in a abstract base class that handles the basic cases of traffic type, network type, etc. Darren On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Hugo Trippaers <h...@trippaers.nl> wrote: > > On 30 okt. 2013, at 02:09, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> First, I like the idea of consolidating logic. I could see also >> implementing this as just an abstract base class that handles this >> common logic. I'm not sure which approach I prefer. Exactly what is >> the problem that you are trying to solve? Without more details, I'd >> lean towards implementing this logic in an abstract base class that >> all NetworkGurus can choose to extend. >> > > Not as much a problem as a design choice. It is my intention to use > capabilities to select the NetworkGuru instead of asking each network guru in > turn if it wants to design the network. The idea here is that new network > gurus only need to supply a list of capabilities to be integrated into > cloudstack. Like i can handle isolation type X in advanced networks for > traffic type Guest. The network orchestrator can make an informed decision on > who to give the task (and warn if there is more than one capable) > > >> Darren >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Hugo Trippaers <h...@trippaers.nl> wrote: >>> Hey guys, >>> >>> This is something i had on my wish list for some time. The current way >>> network gurus are handled is that each guru is asked to design a network >>> and will decide by itself to either do it or don’t. Most gurus have sane >>> checks on which types of networks it can handle, but we have seen issues >>> there in the past. >>> >>> With these changes the network orchestrator will check the capabilities of >>> a guru and based on that ask one or more gurus to design the network. With >>> this the power is where is should new, the network orchestrator. >>> >>> This also means that new networking plugins with gurus will have an easier >>> integration, just list the capabilities. It will also save some database >>> calls (once i clean out all canHandle functions) as gurus will have to >>> lookup less to decide if they should to their job. >>> >>> What do you guys think? >>> >>> Current branch is tested with devcloud in a manual test, so there is more >>> work to do there. I wanted to get some opinions while performing more tests. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Hugo >
