Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Pluggable IPAM rollback issue

2016-08-05 Thread Carl Baldwin
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote: > On Aug 2, 2016 6:52 PM, "Kevin Benton" wrote: > > If we decide to just fix the exception handler inside of ipam itself for > rollbacks (which would be a quick fix), I would be okay with that but we >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Pluggable IPAM rollback issue

2016-08-02 Thread Carl Baldwin
On Aug 2, 2016 6:52 PM, "Kevin Benton" wrote: > > >It might be the wrong impression, but it was already given and there are drivers which have been written under it. That's why I tend toward fixing rollback instead of eliminating it. > > The reason I thought it was relevant to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Pluggable IPAM rollback issue

2016-08-02 Thread Kevin Benton
>It might be the wrong impression, but it was already given and there are drivers which have been written under it. That's why I tend toward fixing rollback instead of eliminating it. The reason I thought it was relevant to bring up is because it's going to be difficult to actually fix it. If any

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Pluggable IPAM rollback issue

2016-08-02 Thread Carl Baldwin
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: > >Given that it shares the session, it wouldn't have to do anything. But, > again, it wouldn't behave like an external driver. > Why not? The only additional thing an external driver would be doing at > this step is calling

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Pluggable IPAM rollback issue

2016-08-02 Thread Kevin Benton
>Given that it shares the session, it wouldn't have to do anything. But, again, it wouldn't behave like an external driver. Why not? The only additional thing an external driver would be doing at this step is calling an external system. Any local accounting in the DB that driver would do would

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Pluggable IPAM rollback issue

2016-08-01 Thread Carl Baldwin
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Kevin Benton wrote: > >We still want the exception to rollback the entire API operation and > stopping it with a nested operation I think would mess that up. > > Well I think you would want to start a nested transaction, capture the > duplicate,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Pluggable IPAM rollback issue

2016-08-01 Thread Kevin Benton
>We still want the exception to rollback the entire API operation and stopping it with a nested operation I think would mess that up. Well I think you would want to start a nested transaction, capture the duplicate, call the ipam delete methods, then throw a retryrequest. The exception will still

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][IPAM] Pluggable IPAM rollback issue

2016-08-01 Thread Carl Baldwin
Hi all, Last Thursday, I spent the afternoon looking in to a bug with pluggable IPAM [1] which is preventing me from deciding to pull the trigger on finally switching from the old non-pluggable reference implementation. I'd *really* like to get this in shape for Newton but time is running out.