I thought it might be helpful to show a sample of the output from the proxied commands: Please find the example here:
http://paste.openstack.org/show/Em861wMwFvrFlsWkugfX Chris Krelle NobodyCam On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 09/09/2014 11:22 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > On 09/09/2014 05:24 PM, Michael Still wrote: > >> Hi. > >> > >> One of the last things blocking Ironic from graduating is deciding > >> whether or not we need a Nova API proxy for the old baremetal > >> extension to new fangled Ironic API. The TC has asked that we discuss > >> whether we think this functionality is actually necessary. > >> > >> It should be noted that we're _not_ talking about migration of > >> deployed instances from baremetal to Ironic. That is already > >> implemented. What we are talking about is if users post-migration > >> should be able to expect their previous baremetal Nova API extension > >> to continue to function, or if they should use the Ironic APIs from > >> that point onwards. > >> > >> Nova had previously thought this was required, but it hasn't made it > >> in time for Juno unless we do a FFE, and it has been suggested that > >> perhaps its not needed at all because it is an admin extension. > >> > >> To be super specific, we're talking about the "baremetal nodes" admin > >> extension here. This extension has the ability to: > >> > >> - list nodes running baremetal > >> - show detail of one of those nodes > >> - create a new baremetal node > >> - delete a baremetal node > >> > >> Only the first two of those would be supported if we implemented a > proxy. > >> > >> So, discuss. > > > > I'm in favor of proceeding with deprecation without requiring the API > proxy. > > > > In the case of user facing APIs, the administrators in charge of > > upgrading the cloud do not have full control over all of the apps using > > the APIs. In this particular case, I would expect that the cloud > > administrators have *complete* control over the use of these APIs. > > > > Assuming we have one overlap release (Juno) to allow the migration to > > occur and given proper documentation of the migration plan and release > > notes stating the fact that the old APIs are going away, we should be > fine. > > > > In summary, +1 to moving forward without the API proxy requirement. > > The thing is, we have the patch - > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120433/, so it's not like there is a > zomg run around to get the patch. > > I think we should FFE this patch as it provides a smoother transition > from baremetal to ironic. The patch is extremely low risk to the rest of > Nova, as it's a surface proxy feature, so lets just land it and move > forward. > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > _______________________________________________ > 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