Hi Paul, comments inline...
On 08/24/2015 07:02 AM, Paul Michali wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on the multiple local subnet feature for VPN (RFE
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1459423), with a developer
reference document detailing the proposed process
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191944/). The plan is to do this in
two steps. The first is to add new APIs and database support for
"endpoint groups" (see dev ref for details). The second is to modify the
IPSec/VPN APIs to make use of the new information (and no longer use
some older, but equivalent info that is being extended).
I have a few process/procedural questions for the community...
Q1) Should I do this all as one huge commit, as two commits (one for
endpoint groups and one for modification to support multiple local
subnets), or multiple (chained) commits (e.g. commit for each API for
the endpoint groups and for each part of the multiple subnet change)?
My thought (now) is to do this as two commits, with the endpoint groups
as one, and multiple subnet groups as a second. I started with a commit
for create API of endpoint (212692), and then did a chained commit for
delete/show/list (215717), thinking they could be reviewed in pieces,
but they are not that large and could be easily merged.
My advice would be 2 commits, as you have split them out.
Q2) If the two parts are done separately, should the "endpoint group"
portion, which adds a table and API calls, be done as part of the
existing version (v2) of VPN, instead of introducing a new version at
that step?
Is the Neutron VPN API microversioned? If not, then I suppose your only
option is to modify the existing v2 API. These seem to be additive
changes, not modifications to existing API calls, in which case they are
backwards-compatible (just not discoverable via an API microversion).
Q3) For the new API additions, do I create a new subclass for the
"interface" that includes all the existing APIs, introduce a new class
that is used together with the existing class, or do I add this to the
existing API?
Until microversioning is introduced to the Neutron VPN API, it should
probably be a change to the existing v2 API.
Q4) With the final multiple local subnet changes, there will be changes
to the VPN service API (delete subnet_id arg) and IPSec connection API
(delete peer_cidrs arg, and add local_endpoints and peer_endpoints
args). Do we modify the URI so that it calls out v3 (versus v2)? Where
do we do that?
Hmm, with the backwards-incompatible API changes like the above, your
only option is to increment the major version number. The alternative
would be to add support for microversioning as a prerequisite to the
patch that adds backwards-incompatible changes, and then use a
microversion to introduce those changes.
Best,
-jay
I'm unsure of the mechanism of increasing the version.
Thanks in advance for any guidance here on how this should be rolled out...
Regards,
Paul Michali (pc_m)
__________________________________________________________________________
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
