[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-969?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14072531#comment-14072531
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on CLOUDSTACK-969:
------------------------------------------------------------
Commit 351cc829e3dbdd27c740b8e4a0e8c3afa6252ff1 in cloudstack's branch
refs/heads/master from [~alena1108]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;h=351cc82 ]
CLOUDSTACK-969: Zone response - removed vlan from the zoneResponse as this
field was moved to PhysicalNetworkResponse around 3 releases ago
> api: zone response lists vlan in it as "vlan range of zone" but the vlan
> belongs to physical network
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CLOUDSTACK-969
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-969
> Project: CloudStack
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the
> default.)
> Components: API
> Affects Versions: 4.0.0
> Reporter: Prasanna Santhanam
> Assignee: Alena Prokharchyk
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: marvin
> Fix For: 4.4.0
>
>
> While looking through CLOUDSTACK-968 I notice that the ZoneResponse.java
> still contains the vlan that used to be part of 2.2. This vlan now belongs to
> the PhysicalNetworkResponse.java. Right now shows up in Marvin's response
> classes for createZoneResponse
> public class ZoneResponse extends BaseResponse {
> . ..
> @SerializedName(ApiConstants.VLAN) @Param(description="the vlan range of
> the zone")
> private String vlan;
> ..
> }
> public class PhysicalNetworkResponse extends BaseResponse {
> ...
> @SerializedName(ApiConstants.VLAN) @Param(description="the vlan of the
> physical network")
> private String vlan;
> ...
> }
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>wrote
> It seems that if I set a vlan range for a zone, marvin attempts to
> set that vlan range for every physical network defined for the zone. So the
> first one succeeds, the second one fails. The vlan property should be moved
> up to be a member of the physical network as far as marvin is concerned.
> We're in the process of making changes that allow you to use the same vlan
> numbers on different physical networks anyway, since it's possible that you
> can have completely separate infrastructure on each nic
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
