Hi, As Salvatore mentioned this was one of the things that we discussed at the San Diego summit many years ago. I like the idea of using an RPC interface to speak with Neutron (we could do a similar thing with Cinder, glance etc). This would certainly address a number of issues with the interfaces that we use at the moment. It is certainly something worthwhile discussing next week. We would need to understand how to define versioned API¹s, how to deal with extensions etc. Thanks Gary
On 1/23/15, 2:59 PM, "Russell Bryant" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 01/22/2015 06:40 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: >> I also like the idea of considering the RPC interface. What kind of >> stability / versioning exists on the Neutron RPC interface? >> >> >> Even if Neutron does not have fancy things such as objects with >> remotable method, I think its RPC interfaces are versioned exactly in >> the same way as Nova. On REST vs AMQP I do not have a strong opinion. >> This topic comes up quite often; on the one hand REST provides a cleaner >> separation of concerns between the two projects; on the other hand RPC >> will enable us to design an optimised interface specific to Nova. While >> REST over HTTP is not as bandwidth-efficient as RPC over AMQP it however >> allow deployers to use off-the-shelf tools for HTTP optimisation, such >> as load balancing, or caching. > >Neutron uses rpc versioning, but there are some problems with it (that I >have been working to clean up). The first one is that the interfaces >are quite tangled together. There are interfaces that appear separate, >but are used with a bunch of mixin classes and actually presented as a >single API over rpc. That means they have to be versioned together, >which is not really happening consistently in practice. I'm aiming to >have all of this cleared up by the end of Kilo, though. > >The other issue is related to the "fancy things such as objects with >remotable methods". :-) The key with this is versioning the data sent >over these interfaces. Even with rpc interface versioning clear and >consistently used, I still wouldn't consider these as stable interfaces >until the data is versioned, as well. > >-- >Russell Bryant > >__________________________________________________________________________ >OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
