> Even something like this is a lot more complicated than it sounds due to
the fact that several operations can be happening in parallel.

That's fair, but I was thinking that the 'add existing' VM is fairly
close in behavior to 'add new' VM to the group, less of course any
parallel operations happening on the VM itself.

> I think we just need to draw a line for Nova that just doesn't include this
functionality.

If that's our general direction, no problem.  I'm just thinking about
this from a user's perspective; this would be very difficult for any
administrator to use in its current form because you essentially can't
make a mistake in the group management--any mistake results in you
having to essentially delete the VM and start over, which is a pretty
major usability issue IMO, at least in terms of most production
environments.

Don't get me wrong, I think server groups have a lot of interesting
use cases (I actually would really like to use them) in their current
form and I think as a starting point, this is great.  But I think
without some of these added flexibilities, I think it would be very
challenging for any IT administrator to use them--hence why I'm
exploring adding some additional functionality; I'm even happy to help
implement this, if we can get any type of concurrence on the subject.
:-)

- Joe

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/25/2014 01:25 PM, Joe Cropper wrote:
>> I was thinking something simple such as only allowing the add operation to 
>> succeed IFF no policies are found to be in violation... and then nova 
>> wouldn't need to get into all the complexities you mention?
>
> Even something like this is a lot more complicated than it sounds due to
> the fact that several operations can be happening in parallel.  I think
> we just need to draw a line for Nova that just doesn't include this
> functionality.
>
>> And remove would be fairly straightforward as well since no constraints 
>> would need to be checked.
>
> Right, remove is straight forward, but seems a bit odd to have without
> add.  I'm not sure there's much value to it.
>
> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to