On 07/05/2012 12:06 PM, Livnat Peer wrote: > On 05/07/12 11:56, Michael Pasternak wrote: >> On 07/05/2012 11:40 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: >>> On 05/07/12 11:31, Michael Pasternak wrote: >>>> On 07/05/2012 10:51 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Actually the API has the same concept as you suggest for storage >>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the top level you don't have a status field, but under data >>>>>>>>>>>>> center level, where it's valid then you get the status property. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same should go for networks. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The status property should be added only where it's valid, in >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>> case the cluster level sub-collection >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so sounds like we want to declare these properties deprecated to be >>>>>>>>>>> able >>>>>>>>>>> to remove them in a future version? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess so, >>>>>>>>> The question is, are there other location where the status property >>>>>>>>> (or any other property) exists at an irrelevant level. Unless we >>>>>>>>> want to go into the effort of mapping them all now we probably need >>>>>>>>> to define a concept and anything not complying to that is a bug that >>>>>>>>> is allowed to be fixed without considering it as breaking the API. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> I agree that this is a bug and I DO suggest we go into the effort of >>>>>>> reviewing the other objects as well. >>>>>>> This is too major to just fix this one, and wait until we bump into >>>>>>> another one... >>>>> Mike i see there a general consensus that this is a bug and the top >>>>> level entity should be a DC network. >>>> >>>> i disagree that <status> should be completely removed, instead as bug fix >>>> it >>>> should contain different members: ATTACHED|UNATTACHED (same concept we >>>> using in >>>> /api/storagedomains/xxx) >>> >>> first you agree we should remove the status as it is today as it does >>> not indicate anything to the user. >> >> http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/engine-devel/2012-July/002009.html >> >>> >>> second you suggest that we'll add attached unattached status, I don't >>> see value in it unless you specify the clusters it is attached to as a >>> sub - collection, I don't see us getting to this anytime soon. >> >> exactly on opposite, if network would have /clusters links sub-collection, >> <status>attached|unattached<status> will not be needed as it obvious by >> absence or existence of clusters links in sub-collection, >> >> the use-case is: when you have N networks in DC and want to find unused one >> to attach it to cluster. >> > > I don't see the logic in this use case, you don't attach a network to a > cluster because it is unused, you attach it because you want to use it, > having it attached to another cluster does not make much of a difference. > > I don't see the need for the attached/detached property. > I do think that adding a sub-collection of attached cluster can give > some value to the user but again not an immediate action.
I'll give you one scenario and I'm sure there are lot more: delete all unused networks .... > > >> (without this <status> you'll have to traverse over all networks against all >> clusters to find one unused) >> >>> >>> we can always add it later and it does not change the fact that the API >> >> the solution is very simple and does not require any resources: >> >> 1. to enum NetworkStatus add new (default) member UNATTACHED >> 2. clients will show UNATTACHED if NetworkStatus == UNATTACHED >> or ATTACHED otherwise >> >>> changes. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Can you please open a bug / update the existing bug to reflect that. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Livnat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Michael Pasternak RedHat, ENG-Virtualization R&D _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
