On 7 May 2014 13:04, Mike Kolesnik mkole...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
Yeah, we've already got plans in place to get Cinder to use the
interface to provide us more detailed information and eliminate some
polling. We also have a very purpose-built notification scheme
I have additional concern that API is something that's user facing
so basically now Nova is exposing some internal synchronization
detail to the outside world.
We have lots of admin-only APIs.
Does it make sense that the user would now be able to send messages
to this API?
Potentially.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
Yeah, we've already got plans in place to get Cinder to use the
interface to provide us more detailed information and eliminate some
polling. We also have a very purpose-built notification scheme between
nova and cinder
On 29 April 2014 20:23, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
Yeah, we've already got plans in place to get Cinder to use the
interface to provide us more detailed information and eliminate some
polling. We also have a very purpose-built notification scheme between
nova and cinder that
Aside from creating a sort of cyclic dependency between the two, it
is my understanding that Neutron is meant to be a stand alone
service capable of being consumed by other compute managers (i.e.
oVirt). This breaks that paradigm.
snip
So my question is: Why use API and not RPC?
I saw
Hi,
I came across the implementation of
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/nova-event-callback
and have a question about the way it was implemented.
I notice that now Neutron has a dependency on Nova and needs to be configured
to have nova details (API endpoint, user, password,
