> 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 > OpenStackemail@example.com > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev