Hi Yair, On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 07:47 -0400, Yair Fried wrote: > I would like to add a question to John's list > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Schwarz" <jschw...@redhat.com> > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > <email@example.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:22:33 PM > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax > > additions/changes > > > > > > > > On 08/25/2014 10:06 PM, Brandon Logan wrote: > > >> > > >> 2. Therefor, there should be some configuration to specifically enable > > >> either version (not both) in case LBaaS is needed. In this case, the > > >> other version is disabled (ie. a REST query for non-active version > > >> should return a "not activated" error). Additionally, adding a > > >> 'lb-version' command to return the version currently active seems like a > > >> good user-facing idea. We should see how this doesn't negatively effect > > >> the db migration process (for example, allowing read-only commands for > > >> both versions?) > > > > > > A /version endpoint can be added for both v1 and v2 extensions and > > > service plugins. If it doesn't already exist, it would be nice if > > > neutron had an endpoint that would return the list of loaded extensions > > > and their versions. > > > > > There is 'neutron ext-list', but I'm not familiar enough with it or with > > the REST API to say if we can use that. > > >> > > >> 3. Another decision that's needed to be made is the syntax for v2. As > > >> mentioned, the current new syntax is 'neutron lbaas-<object>-<command>' > > >> (against the old 'lb-<object>-<action>'), keeping in mind that once v1 > > >> is deprecated, a syntax like 'lbv2-<object>-<action>' would be probably > > >> unwanted. Is 'lbaas-<object>-<command>' okay with everyone? > > > > > > That is the reason we with with lbaas because lbv2 looks ugly and we'd > > > be stuck with it for the lifetime of v2, unless we did another migration > > > back to lb for it. Which seemed wrong to do, since then we'd have to > > > accept both lbv2 and lb commands, and then deprecate lbv2. > > > > > > I assume this also means you are fine with the prefix in the API > > > resource of /lbaas as well then? > > > > > I don't mind, as long there is a similar mechanism which disables the > > non-active REST API commands. Does anyone disagree? > > >> > > >> 4. If we are going for different API between versions, appropriate > > >> patches also need to be written for lbaas-related scripts and also > > >> Tempest, and their maintainers should probably be notified. > > > > > > Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you mean by > > > "different API between version." > > > > > The intention was that the change of the user-facing API also forces > > changes on other levels - not only neutronclient needs to be modified > > accordingly, but also tempest system tests, horizon interface regarding > > LBaaS... > > > 5. If we accept #3 and #4 to mean that the python-client API and CLI must be > changed/updated and so does Tempest clients and tests, then what about other > projects consuming the Neutron API? How are Heat and Ceilometer going to be > affected by this change?
That's a good question about Heat and Ceilometer, and honestly it hasn't been discussed. It definitely should be something that should be researched. I think once the incubator dust has settled and we know what goes where, we can dive into this further. Thanks for bringing it up. > > Yair > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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