On Apr 17, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Eugene Nikanorov
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Brandon,
Towards the bottom of that document it does mention content switching and how
it would work with this. I know its a huge text document and hard to navigate
but it is there.
Yeah, i should have been more specific. My concern is that 'single-call API' is
not powerfull enough right now to account for every case.
Which means that complex cases should still go through a regular process.
I think that creates inconsitent workflow where some objects should be created
with one approach while others with another.
The point of the one pool on a load balancer is because other than content
switching there aren't any other use cases for multiple pools. There's a
question/answer about that. As we say in that document, it is not perfect but
it is viable. If that is something most people do not like then another
solution can be discussed.
As for referencing objects within the same request body, it probably wasn't
explained well but if you need to reference a pool that is being created within
that POST body then referencing by the name attribute should be fine. That
name should only be unique within that request body and references to that name
should only be contained within the scope of the request body. After that,
names don't have to be unique.
Even if that wasn't a viable solution, I don't think a single call API should
be quickly dismissed because of this.
Generally speaking, single-call API is not the way Neutron API is designed.
Personally I'm not dismissing this option, but there are two constraints that I
would apply to this approach:
1) single-call API should reflect all capabilities of API
We don't agree with this constraint in terms of removing the single call
model but we are definitely working to absorb all use cases to keep it
orthogonal with the per object model.
2) single-call API should be developed side-by side with per-object API (after
initiall implementation reflects per-object API)
Even this approach of having two API styles could be questioned by some folks,
but at least each of the approaches should be consistent, e.g. should cover
every possible use case that is available with other counterpart.
We are curious of scenario where the single call can't map to a sequence of
separate primitives calls. You have asserted this a few times already can you
give a counter example where a single API call can't map to?
Again, I understand its a huge document and some things are probably not
detailed well. If they are not just ask me to give more details.
The thing is that I've actually was through the single-call API discussion with
some folks and I know the pits of it for our roadmap.
The general issue with a single-call API is that you end up creating Heat-like
template language to address the use cases that we're planning, and yet you'll
have to have per-object operations…
How did you arrive at the conclusion that you must use a DSL(In your
example a heat template language) to implement smaller primitives operations?
No one in favor of the single API call is advocating writing a DSL (or HEAT
template language). Quite the opposite it seems like people against a single
call API are trying to force this into heat as an alternative to a single call.
Heat is more of an orchestration layer to link Volumes Networks and other Cloud
services together and and seems out of scope for a single service alone. Since
these operations we describe pertain only to load balancing objects.
Thanks Carlos.
Thanks,
Eugene.
________________________________
From: Eugene Nikanorov [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:31 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision
progress
Hi folks,
I've briefly looked over the doc.
I think whole idea to base the API on Atlas misses the content switching use
case, which is very important:
We need multiple pools within loadbalancer, and API doesn't seem to allow that.
If it would, then you'll face another problem: you need to reference those
pools somehow inside the json you use in POST.
There are two options here: use names or IDs, both are putting constraints and
create complexity for both user of such API and for the implementation.
That particular problem becomes worse when it comes to objects which might not
have names while it's better to not provide ID in POST and rely on their random
generation. E.g. when you need to create references between objects in json
input - you'll need to create artificial attributes just for the parser to
understand that such input means.
So that makes me think that right now a 'single-call API' is not flexible
enough to comply with our requirements.
While I understand that it might be simpler to use such API for some cases, it
makes complex configurations fall back to our existing approach which is
creating configuration on per object basis.
While the problem with complex configurations is not sorted out, I'd prefer if
we focus on existing 'object-oriented' approach.
On the other hand, without single-call API the rest of proposal seems to be
similar to approaches discussed in
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/LoadbalancerInstance/Discussion
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Brandon Logan
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Sorry about that. It should be readable now.
________________________________
From: Eugene Nikanorov [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3:51 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision
progress
Hi Brandon,
Seems that doc has not been made public, so please share.
Thanks,
Eugene.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Brandon Logan
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Here is Jorge and team’s API proposal based on Atlas. The document has some
questions and answers about why decisions were made. Feel free to open up a
discussion about these questions and answers and really about anything. This
can be changed up to fit any flaws or use cases we missed that this would not
support.
There is a CLI example at the bottom along with a possible L7 switching API
model.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mTfkkdnPAd4tWOMZAdwHEx7IuFZDULjG9bTmWyXe-zo/edit
Thanks,
Brandon Logan
From: Eugene Nikanorov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7:00 AM
To:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements and API revision
progress
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for a good summary. Some comments inline.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Stephen Balukoff
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
So! On this front:
1. Does is make sense to keep filling out use cases in Samuel's document above?
I can think of several more use cases that our customers actually use on our
current deployments which aren't considered in the 8 cases in Samuel's document
thus far. Plus nobody has create any use cases from the cloud operator
perspective yet.
I treat Sam's doc as a source of use cases to triage API proposals. If you
think you have use cases that don't fit into existing API or into proposed API,
they should certainly be brought to attention.
2. It looks like we've started to get real-world data on Load Balancer features
in use in the real world. If you've not added your organization's data, please
be sure to do so soon so we can make informed decisions about product
direction. On this front, when will we be making these decisions?
I'd say we have two kinds of features - one kind is features that affect or
even define the object model and API.
Other kind are features that are implementable within existing/proposed API or
require slight changes/evolution.
First kind is the priority: while some of such features may or may not be
implemented in some particular release, we need to implement proper
infrastructure for them (API, obj model)
Oleg Bondarev (he's neutron core) and me are planning and mostly interested to
work on implementing generic stuff like API/obj model and adopt haproxy driver
to it. So our goal is to make implementation of particular features simpler for
contributors and also make sure that proposed design fits in general lbaas
architecture. I believe that everyone who wants to see certain feature may
start working on it - propose design, participate in discussions and start
actually writing the code.
3. Jorge-- I know an action item from the last meeting was to draft a revision
of the API (probably starting from something similar to the Atlas API). Have
you had a chance to get started on this, and are you open for collaboration on
this document at this time? Alternatively, I'd be happy to take a stab at it
this week (though I'm not very familiar with the Atlas API-- so my proposal
might not look all that similar).
+1, i'd like to see something as well.
What format or template should we be following to create the API documentation?
(I see this here:
http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-network/2.0/content/ch_preface.html
but this seems like it might be a little heavy for an API draft that is likely
to get altered significantly, especially given how this discussion has gone
thus far. :/ )
Agree, that's too heavy for API sketch. I think a set of resources with some
attributes plus a few cli calls is what could show the picture.
Thanks,
Eugene.
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
