Thanks, Do you have the links for the discussions ?
Thanks, JC Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Rudra Rugge <rru...@juniper.net> wrote: > > JC, > > BP has been updated with the correct links. I have removed the abandoned > review #3. > Please review #1 and #2. > > 1. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40071/ > > This is the active review. > There is one comment by Sean regarding > adding a knob when Neutron is not used. > That will be addressed with the next path. > 2. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53171 > This is the active review for tempest > test cases as requested by Joe Gordon. > Currently abandoned until #1 goes through. > 3. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53171 > This review is not active. It was accidentally submitted with a new > change-id. > > Regards, > Rudra > >> On 2/16/14, 9:25 AM, "Martin, JC" <jch.mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Harshad, >> >> I tried to find some discussion around this blueprint. >> Could you provide us with some notes or threads ? >> >> Also, about the code review you mention. which one are you talking about : >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40071/ >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/49470/ >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53171 >> >> because they are all abandoned. >> >> Could you point me to the code, and update the BP because it seems that >> the links are not correct. >> >> Thanks, >> >> JC >>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:04 AM, "Allamaraju, Subbu" <su...@subbu.org> wrote: >>> >>> Harshad, >>> >>> Thanks for clarifying. >>> >>>> We started looking at this as some our customers/partners were >>>> interested in get AWS API compatibility. We have this blueprint and >>>> code review pending for long time now. We will know based on this >>>> thread wether the community is interested. But I assumed that community >>>> was interested as the blueprint was approved and code review has no >>>> -1(s) for long time now. >>> >>> Makes sense. I would leave it to others on this list to chime in if >>> there is sufficient interest or not. >>> >>>> To clarify, a clear incremental path from an AWS compatible API to an >>>> OpenStack model is not clear. >>>> >>>> In my mind AWS compatible API does not need new openstack model. As >>>> more discussion happen on JC's proposal and implementation becomes >>>> clear we will know how incremental is the path. But at high level there >>>> two major differences >>>> 1. New first class object will be introduced which effect all >>>> components >>>> 2. more than one project can be supported within VPC. >>>> But it does not change AWS API(s). So even in JC(s) model if you want >>>> AWS API then we will have to keep VPC to project mapping 1:1, since the >>>> API will not take both VPC ID and project ID. >>>> >>>> As more users want to migrate from AWS or IaaS providers who want >>>> compete with AWS should be interested in this compatibility. >>> >>> IMHO that's a tough sell. Though an AWS compatible API does not need an >>> OpenStack abstraction, we would end up with two independent ways of >>> doing similar things. That would OpenStack repeating itself! >>> >>> Subbu >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
