Thanks Trevor. Replies inline! > -----Original Message----- > From: Trevor Vardeman [mailto:trevor.varde...@rackspace.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 7:30 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] RackSpace API review (multi- > call) > > Vijay, > > Comments in-line, hope I can clear some of this up for you :) > > -Trevor > > On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 13:16 +0000, Vijay Venkatachalam wrote: > > I am expecting to be more active on community on the LBaaS front. > > > > May be reviewing and picking-up a few items to work as well. > > > > I had a look at the proposal. Seeing Single & Multi-Call approach for > > each workflow makes it easy to understand. > > > > Thanks for the clear documentation, it is welcoming to review :-). I was not > allowed to comment on WorkFlow doc, can you enable comments? > > > > The single-call approach essentially creates the global pool/VIP. Once > VIP/Pool is created using single call, are they reusable in multi-call? > > For example: Can a pool created for HTTP endpoint/loadbalancer be used > in HTTPS endpoint LB where termination occurs as well? > > From what I remember discussing with my team (being a developer under > Jorge's umbrella) There is a 1-M relationship between load balancer and > pool. Also, the protocol is specified on the Load Balancer, not the pool, > meaning you could expose TCP traffic via one Load Balancer to a pool, and > HTTP traffic via another Load Balancer to that same pool. > This is easily modified such >
Ok. Thanks! Should there be a separate use case for covering this (If it is not already present)? > > > > Also, would it be useful to include PUT as a single call? I see PUT only for > POOL not for LB. > > A user who started with single-call POST, might like to continue to use the > same approach for PUT/update as well. > > On the fifth page of the document found here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mTfkkdnPAd4tWOMZAdwHEx7IuFZ > DULjG9bTmWyXe-zo/edit > There is a PUT detailed for a Load Balancer. There should be support for PUT > on any parent object assuming the fields one would update are not read- > only. > My mistake, didn't explain properly. I see PUT of loadbalancer containing only loadbalancer properties. I was wondering if it makes sense for PUT of LOADBALANCER to contain pool+members also. Similar to the POST payload. Also, will delete of loadbalancer DELETE the pool/vip, if they are no more referenced by another loadbalancer. Or, they have to be cleaned up separately? > > > > Thanks, > > Vijay V. > > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev