On 11/17/2012 11:56 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
On 11/17/2012 11:00 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
Hello,

After discussion calm down, I want to once again to ask a question.

Why isn't this discussion focusing on the interface vdsm will use to
access "network provider"? Why should vdsm core care which "network
technology" it actually uses?

Quantum?

1. that's still a specific implementation.
2. last i checked, it is far from covering the API needed by vdsm for provisioning network configurations, rather than just consuming them? (i.e., i don't remember quantum ever intends to provide an api to bond physical interfaces, etc).



With proper design of such interface, and the ability to select
interface implementation using configuration, vdsm will be able to
work with various of technologies without a change.

Technologies can be either network manager, ovs, libvirt or basic.
What popular now can be unpopular in future, what is considered stable
enough for now, may be not stable enough for future uses, what is
maintained now may be unmaintained in future.

Developing tightly coupled software is something I would avoid if not
absolutely required.

People may vote which interface they like to have now and we can
implement one, while in time we may see other implementations as
contributions. This will also allow us to move from one technology to
another with decent effort/costs if required for any reason.

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel


_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

Reply via email to