On 28/05/13 11:42 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >+1 to this proposal (with one concern noted below). > >> >> Effort I am proposing is to get API semantics right with minimal >>changes. >> I am not proposing to enable portability for zone level public Ip's for >> 4.2 but can be done for later release. Please comment. > >Does it make sense to actually get the API for 4.2 to match this >proposal? Once we release it, changing the meaning really means >breaking the contract, right?
I was not clear in my mail. Yes, my intention is to get the API right for 4.2 so that it can be extended cleanly in later releases. > >> >> >>[1]https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/portable+public >>+I >> P >> [2]http://en.clouddesignpattern.org/index.php/CDP:Floating_IP_Pattern >> >> >
