What is the major motivation not to simply use a glance image named "MySQL 5.5" or "MongoDB 2.4"?
Wouldn't that give service providers all the flexibility they need for providing different types? For example, I could offer a simple "MySQL" image that creates a MySQL instance. If all my users use the one "MySQL" image then I can update that image deploy the latest version (or any version that I, as the service provider, want to deploy). Alternatively, my users could have a choice of versions if I roll a "MySQL 5.1" and "MySQL 5.5" image. Want to deactivate a version: delete the image. Want to offer a new version: create a new image. It seems like this is parallel to a NOVA deploy offering multiple version of the same OS (Ubuntu 12 vs Ubuntu 13). Images work nicely for that. Why couldn't they work for us? On 10/21/13 3:12 PM, "Michael Basnight" <mbasni...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Tim Simpson wrote: > >> 1. I think since we have two fields in the instance object we should >>make a new object for datastore and avoid the name prefixing, like this: > >I agree with this. > >> 2. I also think a datastore_version alone should be sufficient since >>the associated datastore type will be implied: > >When i brought this up it was generally discussed as being confusing. Id >like to use type and rely on having a default (or active) version behind >the scenes. > >> 3. Additionally, while a datastore_type should have an ID in the Trove >>infastructure database, it should also be possible to pass just the name >>of the datastore type to the instance call, such as "mysql" or "mongo". >>Maybe we could allow this in addition to the ID? I think this form >>should actually use the argument "type", and the id should then be >>passed as "type_id" instead. > >Id prefer this honestly. > >> 4. Additionally, in the current pull request to implement this it is >>possible to avoid passing a version, but only if no more than one >>version of the datastore_type exists in the database. >> >> I think instead the datastore_type row in the database should also have >>a "default_version_id" property, that an operator could update to the >>most recent version or whatever other criteria they wish to use, meaning >>the call could become this simple: > >Since we have determined from this email thread that we have an active >status, and that > 1 version can be active, we have to think about the >precedence of active vs default. My question would be, if we have a >default_version_id and a active version, what do we choose on behalf of >the user? If there is > 1 active version and a user does not specify the >version, the api will error out, unless a default is defined. We also >need a default_type in the config so the existing APIs can maintain >compatibility. We can re-discuss this for v2 of the API. >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev