Thanks Mike for getting me these useful reviews & design discussions.

So as it stands now, I am trying '*provider_id*' to map OpenStack/Cinder
with the driver's backend storage.

I got some useful review comments from @xing-yang to try out '*provider_id'*
feature enabled by below commit:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/143205/

Do let me know if '*provider_id'* approach seems reasonable ?


Regards,
Amit
*CloudByte Inc.* <http://www.cloudbyte.com/>

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Mike Perez <thin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06:05 Sat 20 Dec     , Duncan Thomas wrote:
> > No, I mean that if drivers are going to access database, then they should
> > do it via a defined interface that limits what they can do to a sane set
> of
> > operations. I'd still prefer that they didn't need extra access beyond
> the
> > model update, but I don't know if that is possible.
> >
> > Duncan Thomas
> > On Dec 19, 2014 6:43 PM, "Amit Das" <amit....@cloudbyte.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Duncan.
> > > Do you mean hepler methods in the specific driver class?
> > > On 19 Dec 2014 14:51, "Duncan Thomas" <duncan.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> So our general advice has historical been 'drivers should not be
> > >> accessing the db directly'. I haven't had chance to look at your
> driver
> > >> code yet, I've been on vacation, but my suggestion is that if you
> > >> absolutely must store something in the admin metadata rather than
> somewhere
> > >> that is covered by the model update (generally provider location and
> > >> provider auth) then writing some helper methods that wrap the context
> bump
> > >> and db call would be better than accessing it directly from the
> driver.
> > >>
> > >> Duncan Thomas
> > >> On Dec 18, 2014 11:41 PM, "Amit Das" <amit....@cloudbyte.com> wrote:
>
> I've expressed in past reviews that we should have an interface that limits
> drivers access to the database [1], but received quite a bit of push
> back in Cinder. I recommend we stick to what has been decided, otherwise,
> Amit
> you should spend some time on reading the history of this issue [2] from
> previous meetings and start a rediscussion on it in the next meeting [3].
> Not
> discouraging it, but this has been something brought up at least a couple
> of
> times now and it ends up with the same answer from the community.
>
> [1] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107693/14
> [2] -
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2014/cinder.2014-10-15-16.00.log.html#l-186
> [3] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CinderMeetings
>
> --
> Mike Perez
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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