> -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Hellmann [mailto:d...@doughellmann.com] > Sent: 02 September 2015 16:21 > To: openstack-dev <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Command structure for OSC plugin > > Excerpts from Tim Bell's message of 2015-09-02 05:15:35 +0000: > > That would be great to have plugins on the commands which are relevant > to multiple projects… avoiding exposing all of the underlying projects as > prefixes and getting more consistency would be very appreciated by the > users. > > That works in some cases, but in a lot of cases things that are superficially > similar have important differences in the inputs they take. In those cases, > it's > better to be explicit about the differences than to force the concepts > together > in a way that makes OSC present only the least-common denominator > interface. >
I think the difference are in the options rather than the prefixes. Thus, if I want to create a bare metal server, I should be able to use 'openstack create' rather than 'openstack ironic create'. The various implications on options etc. are clearly dependent on the target environment. I would simply like to avoid that the OSC becomes a prefix, i.e. you need to know that ironic is for baremetal. If options are presented which are not supported in the desired context, they should be rejected. At CERN, we're using OSC as the default CLI. This is partly because the support for Keystone v3 API is much more advanced but also because we do not want our end users to know the list of OpenStack projects, only the services we are offering them. Tim > Doug > > > > > Tim > > > > From: Dean Troyer [mailto:dtro...@gmail.com] > > Sent: 01 September 2015 22:47 > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Command structure for OSC plugin > > > > [late catch-up] > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Doug Hellmann > <d...@doughellmann.com<mailto:d...@doughellmann.com>> wrote: > > Excerpts from Brad P. Crochet's message of 2015-08-24 15:35:59 -0400: > > > On 24/08/15 18:19 +0000, Tim Bell wrote: > > > > > > > >From a user perspective, where bare metal and VMs are just different > flavors (with varying capabilities), can we not use the same commands > (server create/rebuild/...) ? Containers will create the same conceptual > problems. > > > > > > > >OSC can provide a converged interface but if we just replace '$ ironic > XXXX' by '$ openstack baremetal XXXX', this seems to be a missed > opportunity to hide the complexity from the end user. > > > > > > > >Can we re-use the existing server structures ? > > > > I've wondered about how users would see doing this, we've done it already > with the quota and limits commands (blurring the distinction between > project APIs). At some level I am sure users really do not care about some of > our project distinctions. > > > > > To my knowledge, overriding or enhancing existing commands like that > > > is not possible. > > > > You would have to do it in tree, by making the existing commands smart > > enough to talk to both nova and ironic, first to find the server > > (which service knows about something with UUID XYZ?) and then to take > > the appropriate action on that server using the right client. So it > > could be done, but it might lose some of the nuance between the server > > types by munging them into the same command. I don't know what sorts > > of operations are different, but it would be worth doing the analysis > > to see. > > > > I do have an experimental plugin that hooks the server create command to > add some options and change its behaviour so it is possible, but right now I > wouldn't call it supported at all. That might be something that we could > consider doing though for things like this. > > > > The current model for commands calling multiple project APIs is to put > them in openstackclient.common, so yes, in-tree. > > > > Overall, though, to stay consistent with OSC you would map operations > into the current verbs as much as possible. It is best to think in terms of > how > the CLI user is thinking and what she wants to do, and not how the REST or > Python API is written. In this case, 'baremetal' is a type of server, a set > of > attributes of a server, etc. As mentioned earlier, containers will also have > a > similar paradigm to consider. > > > > dt > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > __________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev- > requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
