Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

[Pedro Marques]

On Aug 6, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Armando M.  wrote:

> 
> On 6 August 2014 15:47, Kevin Benton  wrote:
> I think we should merge it and just prefix the API for now with 
> '/your_application_will_break_after_juno_if_you_use_this/' 
> 
> And you make your call based and what pros and cons exactly, If I am ask?
> 
> Let me start:
> 
> Option 1:
>   - pros
> - immediate delivery vehicle for consumption by operators

Since our collective goal is to maximize the benefits for OpenStack 
users/operators, that seems to be the winner.

>   - cons
> - code is burder from a number of standpoints (review, test, etc)

Any piece of code is a burden.

> 
> Option 2:
>   - pros
> - enable a small set of Illuminati to iterate faster

This is probably not intentional from your part ,but your choice of words make 
it seem that you are deriding the efforts of the team behind this effort. While 
i may disagree technically here and there with their current design, it seems 
to me that the effort in question is rather broad based in terms of support 
(from multiple different organizations) and that the team has put a non trivial 
effort in making the effort public. I don't think we can characterize the team 
either as a "secret group" or a "small set".

  Pedro.

>  
>   - cons
> - integration burden with other OpenStack projects (keystone, nova, 
> neutron, etc)
> 
> Cheers,
> Armando
> ___
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] Fwd: FW: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward

[Pedro Marques]

On Aug 6, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
> 
> However, it seems to me that the end-goal of the GBP effort is *actually* to 
> provide a higher-layer API to Neutron that would essentially enable 
> proprietary vendors to entirely swap out all of Neutron core for a new set of 
> drivers that spoke proprietary device APIs.
> 
> If this is the end-goal, it should be stated more clearly, IMO.

I believe that people should be considered innocent until proven otherwise. Is 
there a reason to believe there is some hidden reason behind this proposal ? It 
seems to me that this is uncalled for.

Neutron allows vendors to speak to proprietary device APIs, it was designed to 
do so, AFAIK. It is also possibly to "entirely swap out all of the Neutron 
core"... the proponents of the group based policy didn't have to go through so 
much trouble if that was their intent. As far as i know most plugins talk to a 
proprietary API.

I happen to disagree technically with a couple of choices made by this 
proposal; but the blueprint was approved. Which means that i lost the argument, 
or didn't raise it on time, or didn't argue convincingly... regardless of the 
reason, the time to argue about the goal has passed. The decision of the 
community was to approve the spec and that decision should be respected.

  Pedro.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev