Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Urgent questions on Service Type Framework for VPNaaS

2014-02-18 Thread Nachi Ueno
Hi Paul

Sorry, I have missed this mail.
The reason for putting -1 was the gating issue, so it is OK now.

PS
Thank you for your rebasing this one

2014-02-16 16:43 GMT-08:00 Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com:
 Hi Paul,

 Our plan with FWaaS was to get it to parity with LBaaS as far as STF
 is concerned. That way any changes to STF can be explored in the
 context of all services, and the migration can also be performed for
 all services. Accordingly, Gary Duan has been actively working on the
 patch:
 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60699/

 and we hope to get it approved and merged soon.

 Thanks,
 ~Sumit.

 On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Paul Michali p...@cisco.com wrote:
 Hi Nachi and other cores!

 I'm very close to publishing my vendor based VPNaaS driver (service driver
 is ready, device driver is a day or two out), but have a bit of an issue.
 This code uses the Service Type Framework, which, as you know, is still out
 for review (and has been idle for a long time).  I updated the STF client
 code and it is updated in Gerrit.

 I saw you put a -1 on your STF server code. Is the feature being abandoned
 or was that for some other reason?

 If going forward with it, can you update the server STF code, or should I do
 it (I have a branch with the STF based on master of about 2 weeks ago, so it
 should update OK)?

 Also, I'm wondering (worried) about the logistics of my reviews. I wanted to
 do my service driver and device driver separately (I guess making the latter
 dependent on the former in Gerrit). However, because of the STF, I'd need to
 make my service driver dependent on the STF server code too (my current
 branch has both code pieces). Really worried about the complexity there and
 about it getting hung up, if there is more delay on the STF review.

 I've been working on another branch without the STF dependency, however that
 has to hack in part of the STF to be able to select the service driver based
 on config vs hardwired to the reference driver.

 Should I proceed with the STF review chaining or push out my code w/o the
 STF?

 Thanks!

 PCM (Paul Michali)

 MAIL  p...@cisco.com
 IRCpcm_  (irc.freenode.net)
 TW@pmichali
 GPG key4525ECC253E31A83
 Fingerprint 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83


 ___
 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


[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Urgent questions on Service Type Framework for VPNaaS

2014-02-15 Thread Paul Michali
Hi Nachi and other cores!

I'm very close to publishing my vendor based VPNaaS driver (service driver is 
ready, device driver is a day or two out), but have a bit of an issue. This 
code uses the Service Type Framework, which, as you know, is still out for 
review (and has been idle for a long time).  I updated the STF client code and 
it is updated in Gerrit.

I saw you put a -1 on your STF server code. Is the feature being abandoned or 
was that for some other reason?

If going forward with it, can you update the server STF code, or should I do it 
(I have a branch with the STF based on master of about 2 weeks ago, so it 
should update OK)?

Also, I'm wondering (worried) about the logistics of my reviews. I wanted to do 
my service driver and device driver separately (I guess making the latter 
dependent on the former in Gerrit). However, because of the STF, I'd need to 
make my service driver dependent on the STF server code too (my current branch 
has both code pieces). Really worried about the complexity there and about it 
getting hung up, if there is more delay on the STF review.

I've been working on another branch without the STF dependency, however that 
has to hack in part of the STF to be able to select the service driver based on 
config vs hardwired to the reference driver.

Should I proceed with the STF review chaining or push out my code w/o the STF?

Thanks!

PCM (Paul Michali)

MAIL  p...@cisco.com
IRCpcm_  (irc.freenode.net)
TW@pmichali
GPG key4525ECC253E31A83
Fingerprint 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev