On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 09:50 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "the existing API is confusing and > difficult to use" one of the major complaints with it (as voiced in > the IRC meeting, say on April 10th in IRC, starting around... I > dunno... 14:13 GMT)? If that's the case, then the user experience > seems like an important concern, and possibly trumps some vaguely > defined "project direction" which apparently doesn't take this into > account if it's vetoing an approach which is more easily done / > understood by the user.
+1 Stephen This is what the API we are proposing accomplishes. It is not confusing. Does having a root object of VIP work? Yes, but anything can be made to work. It's more about what makes sense. To me going with an API similar to the existing one does not address this issue at all. Also, what happened to a totally brand new API and object model in neutron V3? I thought that was still on the table, and its the perfect time to create a new load balancer API, backwards compatibility is not expected. I'd also like to ask why it seems to not matter at all if most (if not all) operators like an API proposal? Thanks, Brandon Logan _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
