On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Solly Ross <sr...@redhat.com> wrote: > With my admittedly limited knowledge of the whole Ironic process, the > question seems to me to be: "If we don't implement a proxy, which people are > going to have a serious problem?" > > Do we have an data on which users/operators are making use of the baremetal > API in any extensive fashion? If nobody's using it, or the people using it > aren't using in an > extensive fashion, I think we don't need to make a proxy for it. > Strengthening this > argument is the fact that we would only be proxying the first two calls, so > it wouldn't > be a drop-in replacement anyway.
You make a fair point, and this is something we've struggled for during the Ironic driver implementation. We _know_ that baremetal works (I know of at least one 1,000 node deployment), but we _don't_ know how widely its deployed and we don't have a good way to find out. So, I think we're left assuming that people do use it, and acting accordingly. Then again, is it ok to assume admins can tweak their code to use the ironic API? I suspect it is, because the number of admins is small... Michael -- Rackspace Australia _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev