" I think you should update the current reviews (new patch set, not additional review.)" +1
I like those changes: +2 -----Original Message----- From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:do...@a10networks.com] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 12:51 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Improvements to current reviews I think you should update the current reviews (new patch set, not additional review.) Doug > On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:34 PM, "Brandon Logan" <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> > wrote: > > So I've done some work on improving the code on the current pending > reviews. And would like to get peoples' opinions on whether I should > add antoher patch set to those reviews, or add the changes as as > another review dependent on the pending ones. > > To be clear, no matter what the first review in the chain will not > change: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331/ > > However, if adding another patch set is preferrable then plugin and db > implementation review would get another patch set and then obviously > anything depending on that. > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105609/ > > My opinion is that I'd like to get both of these in as a new patch set. > Reason being that the reviews don't have any +2's and there is > uncertainty because of the GBP discussion. So, I don't think it'd be > a major issue if a new patch set was created. Speak up if you think > otherwise. I'd like to get as many people's thoughts as possible. > > The changes are: > > 1) Added data models, which are just plain python object mimicking the > sql alchemy models, but don't have the overhead or dynamic nature of > being sql alchemy models. These data models are now returned by the > database methods, instead of the sql alchemy objects. Also, I moved > the definition of the sql alchemy models into its own module. I've > been wanting to do this but since I thought I was running out of time > I left it for later. > > These shouldn't cause many merge/rebase conflicts, but it probably > cause a few because the sql alchemy models were moved to a different module. > > > 2) The LoadBalancerPluginv2 no longer inherits from the > LoadBalancerPluginDbv2. The database is now a composite attribute of > the plugin (i.e. plugin.db.get_loadbalancer()). This cleans up the > code a bit and removes the necessity for _delete_db_entity methods > that the drivers needed because now they can actually call the database > methods. > Also, this makes testing more clear, though I have not added any tests > for this because the previous tests are sufficient for now. Adding > the appropriate tests would add 1k or 2k lines most likely. > > This will likely cause more conflicts because the _db_delete_entity > methods have been removed. However, the new driver interface/mixins > defined a db_method for all drivers to use, so if that is being used > there shouldn't be any problems. > > Thanks, > Brandon > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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