Hi Denis, The plan from the start with Conductor has been to remove any guest connections to the database. So any lingering ones are omissions which should be dealt with.
>> Since not each database have root entity (not even ACL at all) it would be >> incorrect to report about root enabling on server-side because >> server-side(trove-taskmanager) should stay common as it possible. I agree that in the case of the root call Conductor should have another RPC method that gets called by the guest to inform it that the root entity was set. I also agree that any code that can stay as common as possible between datastores should. However I don't agree that trove-taskmanager (by which I assume you mean the daemon) has to only be for common functionality. Thanks, Tim ________________________________ From: Denis Makogon [dmako...@mirantis.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 7:04 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: [openstack-dev] [trove] Dropping connectivity from guesagent to Trove back-end Goodday, OpenStack DВaaS community. I'd like to start conversation about dropping connectivity from In-VM guestagent and Trove back-end. Since Trove has conductor service which interacts with agents via MQ service, we could let it deal with any back-end required operations initialized by guestagent. Now conductor deals with instance status notifications and backup status notifications. But guest still have one more operation which requires back-end connectivity – database root-enabled reporting . After dealing with it we could finally drop connectivity . Since not each database have root entity (not even ACL at all) it would be incorrect to report about root enabling on server-side because server-side(trove-taskmanager) should stay common as it possible. My first suggestion was to extend conductor API  to let conductor write report to Trove back-end. Until Trove would reach state when it would support multiple datastore (databases) types current patch would work fine , but when Trove would deliver, suppose, Database (without ACL) it would be confusing when after instance provisioning user will find out that some how root was enabled, but Database doesn't have any ACL at all. My point is that Trove Conductor must handle every database (datastore in terms of Trove) specific operations which are required back-end connection. And Trove server-side (taskmanager) must stay generic and perform preparation tasks, which are independent from datastore type.  https://github.com/openstack/trove/blob/master/bin/trove-guestagent#L52  https://bugs.launchpad.net/trove/+bug/1257489  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59410/5  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59410/
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev