To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on "Calling driver
interface on every API request"
Well, that exactly what we've tried to solve with tags in the flavor.
Considering your example with whol
st 11, 2014 4:58 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on "Calling driver
interface on every API request"
Hi,
Validations such as "timeout > delay" should be performed on the API level
configuration is exposed
> > as a single wizard (which has loadbalancer, listener, pool,
> > monitor properties) then provider
> > is chosen only once.
> >
> > Curious question, is flavour framework expected to address
> > this pr
-----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:do...@a10networks.com]
>
> Sent: 11 August 2014 22:02
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBa
ider
> is chosen only once.
>
> Curious question, is flavour framework expected to address this problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay V.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:do...@a10networks.com]
> Sent: 11 August 2014 22:02
> To: OpenStack Development M
iling List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on "Calling driver
interface on every API request"
Hi Sam,
Very true. I think that Vijay’s objection is that we are currently imposing a
logical structure on the driver, when it should be a driver d
gt;-Sam.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:do...@a10networks.com]
>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:55 PM
>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on "Calling
>
(not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on "Calling driver
interface on every API request"
Hi all,
> Validations such as ³timeout > delay² should be performed on the API
>level before it reaches the driver.
For a configuration tree (l
Hi all,
> Validations such as ³timeout > delay² should be performed on the API
>level before it reaches the driver.
For a configuration tree (lb, listeners, pools, etc.), there should be one
provider.
You¹re right, but I think the point of Vijay¹s example was to highlight
the combo error problem
Yeah what I meant was the only solution I could come up with so that the
driver gets passed every call is to have the every entity have a
provider. I do believe this is a bit cumbersome for a user, and extra
validation would be needed to verify that two entities linked together
cannot have differe
Hi,
Validations such as "timeout > delay" should be performed on the API level
before it reaches the driver.
For a configuration tree (lb, listeners, pools, etc.), there should be one
provider.
Having provider defined in multiple places does not make sense.
-San.
From: Vijay Venkatachalam [
11 matches
Mail list logo
