On 05/07/2012 11:52 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 05/07/2012 07:06 PM, Shireesh Anjal wrote:
On Monday 07 May 2012 02:06 AM, Ayal Baron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
i can't see any justification for the 'gluster' prefix,
as this is only additional /service/ provided by the project,
and Gluster now is a part of the RHT.
I believe there needs to be an indication which service this is
about.
If we will support provisioning other storage types which also
have
volumes then we'd want a way to differentiate.
However, isn't there a way to simply add gluster as the name
space?
i.e. somthing like: /api/gluster/.../volumes ? (instead of
'cluster'
as it is redundant imho)
A gluster volume is a cluster level entity, and hence
"/api/.../clusters/{cluster:id}" seems like the right parent URI
for the
gluster volumes collection resource.
that's true for all other root entities as well:
- VM is DC/cluster level
- template is DC level
- disk is storage domain level
- network is DC level
- hosts are cluster level (for now)
yet all of them have their own root collections as well.
I think glustervolumes seems safest/most reasonable for now (either
at
cluster level or root level as well)
does it make sense to also have gluster/bricks ? if so, I would nest it, i.e.
gluster/{volumes|bricks|...}
bricks are host level, afair they are not used like this at all.
gluster/xxx is interesting as well, though not parallel to current virt
mappings (storage_domains, disks, etc., being root collections)
shireesh - any thoughts about this approach:
- do you want volumes as root collection, or only under cluster
- if root, should these be glustervolumes like other root collection, or
the under a gluster collection.
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
