Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Do we need an IntrospectionInterface?
+9001 for introspection On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Shivanand Tendulker wrote: > +1 for separate interface. > > --Shivanand > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes < > lucasago...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for putting it up Dmitry. I think the idea is fine too, I >> understand that people may want to use in-band discovery for drivers like >> iLO or DRAC and having those on a separated interface allow us to composite >> a driver to do it (which is ur use case 2. ). >> >> So, +1. >> >> Lucas >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Imre Farkas wrote: >> >>> On 11/26/2014 02:20 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: >>> Hi all! As our state machine and discovery discussion proceeds, I'd like to ask your opinion on whether we need an IntrospectionInterface (DiscoveryInterface?). Current proposal [1] suggests adding a method for initiating a discovery to the ManagementInterface. IMO it's not 100% correct, because: 1. It's not management. We're not changing anything. 2. I'm aware that some folks want to use discoverd-based discovery [2] even for DRAC and ILO (e.g. for vendor-specific additions that can't be implemented OOB). Any ideas? Dmitry. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100951/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135605/ >>> Hi Dmitry, >>> >>> I see the value in using the composability of our driver interfaces, so >>> I vote for having a separate IntrospectionInterface. Otherwise we wouldn't >>> allow users to use eg. the DRAC driver with an in-band but more powerful hw >>> discovery. >>> >>> Imre >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 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] [Ironic] Do we need an IntrospectionInterface?
+1 for separate interface. --Shivanand On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for putting it up Dmitry. I think the idea is fine too, I > understand that people may want to use in-band discovery for drivers like > iLO or DRAC and having those on a separated interface allow us to composite > a driver to do it (which is ur use case 2. ). > > So, +1. > > Lucas > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Imre Farkas wrote: > >> On 11/26/2014 02:20 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: >> >>> Hi all! >>> >>> As our state machine and discovery discussion proceeds, I'd like to ask >>> your opinion on whether we need an IntrospectionInterface >>> (DiscoveryInterface?). Current proposal [1] suggests adding a method for >>> initiating a discovery to the ManagementInterface. IMO it's not 100% >>> correct, because: >>> 1. It's not management. We're not changing anything. >>> 2. I'm aware that some folks want to use discoverd-based discovery [2] >>> even for DRAC and ILO (e.g. for vendor-specific additions that can't be >>> implemented OOB). >>> >>> Any ideas? >>> >>> Dmitry. >>> >>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100951/ >>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135605/ >>> >>> >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> I see the value in using the composability of our driver interfaces, so I >> vote for having a separate IntrospectionInterface. Otherwise we wouldn't >> allow users to use eg. the DRAC driver with an in-band but more powerful hw >> discovery. >> >> Imre >> >> >> ___ >> 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 mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Do we need an IntrospectionInterface?
+1 for a separate interface. On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for putting it up Dmitry. I think the idea is fine too, I > understand that people may want to use in-band discovery for drivers like > iLO or DRAC and having those on a separated interface allow us to composite > a driver to do it (which is ur use case 2. ). > > So, +1. > > Lucas > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Imre Farkas wrote: > >> On 11/26/2014 02:20 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: >> >>> Hi all! >>> >>> As our state machine and discovery discussion proceeds, I'd like to ask >>> your opinion on whether we need an IntrospectionInterface >>> (DiscoveryInterface?). Current proposal [1] suggests adding a method for >>> initiating a discovery to the ManagementInterface. IMO it's not 100% >>> correct, because: >>> 1. It's not management. We're not changing anything. >>> 2. I'm aware that some folks want to use discoverd-based discovery [2] >>> even for DRAC and ILO (e.g. for vendor-specific additions that can't be >>> implemented OOB). >>> >>> Any ideas? >>> >>> Dmitry. >>> >>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100951/ >>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135605/ >>> >>> >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> I see the value in using the composability of our driver interfaces, so I >> vote for having a separate IntrospectionInterface. Otherwise we wouldn't >> allow users to use eg. the DRAC driver with an in-band but more powerful hw >> discovery. >> >> Imre >> >> >> ___ >> 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 mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Do we need an IntrospectionInterface?
Hi, Thanks for putting it up Dmitry. I think the idea is fine too, I understand that people may want to use in-band discovery for drivers like iLO or DRAC and having those on a separated interface allow us to composite a driver to do it (which is ur use case 2. ). So, +1. Lucas On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Imre Farkas wrote: > On 11/26/2014 02:20 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > >> Hi all! >> >> As our state machine and discovery discussion proceeds, I'd like to ask >> your opinion on whether we need an IntrospectionInterface >> (DiscoveryInterface?). Current proposal [1] suggests adding a method for >> initiating a discovery to the ManagementInterface. IMO it's not 100% >> correct, because: >> 1. It's not management. We're not changing anything. >> 2. I'm aware that some folks want to use discoverd-based discovery [2] >> even for DRAC and ILO (e.g. for vendor-specific additions that can't be >> implemented OOB). >> >> Any ideas? >> >> Dmitry. >> >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100951/ >> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135605/ >> >> > Hi Dmitry, > > I see the value in using the composability of our driver interfaces, so I > vote for having a separate IntrospectionInterface. Otherwise we wouldn't > allow users to use eg. the DRAC driver with an in-band but more powerful hw > discovery. > > Imre > > > ___ > 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] [Ironic] Do we need an IntrospectionInterface?
On 11/26/2014 02:20 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: Hi all! As our state machine and discovery discussion proceeds, I'd like to ask your opinion on whether we need an IntrospectionInterface (DiscoveryInterface?). Current proposal [1] suggests adding a method for initiating a discovery to the ManagementInterface. IMO it's not 100% correct, because: 1. It's not management. We're not changing anything. 2. I'm aware that some folks want to use discoverd-based discovery [2] even for DRAC and ILO (e.g. for vendor-specific additions that can't be implemented OOB). Any ideas? Dmitry. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100951/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135605/ Hi Dmitry, I see the value in using the composability of our driver interfaces, so I vote for having a separate IntrospectionInterface. Otherwise we wouldn't allow users to use eg. the DRAC driver with an in-band but more powerful hw discovery. Imre ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Ironic] Do we need an IntrospectionInterface?
Hi all! As our state machine and discovery discussion proceeds, I'd like to ask your opinion on whether we need an IntrospectionInterface (DiscoveryInterface?). Current proposal [1] suggests adding a method for initiating a discovery to the ManagementInterface. IMO it's not 100% correct, because: 1. It's not management. We're not changing anything. 2. I'm aware that some folks want to use discoverd-based discovery [2] even for DRAC and ILO (e.g. for vendor-specific additions that can't be implemented OOB). Any ideas? Dmitry. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100951/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135605/ ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
