On 08/06/2014 04:51 PM, Pedro Marques wrote:
Neutron allows vendors to speak to proprietary device APIs, it was
designed to do so, AFAIK. It is also possibly to "entirely swap out
all of the Neutron core"... the proponents of the group based policy
didn't have to go through so much trouble if that was their intent.
As far as i know most plugins talk to a proprietary API.
I happen to disagree technically with a couple of choices made by
this proposal; but the blueprint was approved. Which means that i
lost the argument, or didn't raise it on time, or didn't argue
convincingly... regardless of the reason, the time to argue about the
goal has passed. The decision of the community was to approve the
spec and that decision should be respected.
Sure, no problem. I'll just go back to Nova and wait around to help
clean up the mess.
In all seriousness, folks, I'm bringing up points about the proposed API
because I see the current mess of Neutron integration with Nova, I see
that nova-network has been "undeprecated" due to continuing lack of
parity and HA concerns in Neutron, and I want things to be better, not
worse.
Neutron contributors need to recognize that Nova is the pre-eminent
consumer of Neutron interfaces, and until those interfaces are stable,
consistent regardless of underlying hardware or driver choices, and
generally preferable for Nova to recommend as its default network
driver, then the Neutron project is sitting as an island unto itself.
The fact that not enough Nova developers (including yours truly) are
paying attention to what is going on in Neutron spec-land and roadmap is
a serious problem we should deal with directly (cross-project spec
meetings, better documentation and communication, shared bug triaging
and verification meetings, etc). Otherwise, these kinds of conversations
are likely to continue.
Best,
-jay
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
