Replies are in-line. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Grig Gheorghiu <[email protected]>wrote:
> >>> I agree with Paul—something that only supports a couple providers > probably shouldn't be a top-level module. Also, I don't understand why it's > called "lb"; it's completely non-descriptive and not even a common acronym. > >> > >> LB is actually a very common acronym in systems administration. > > > > +1, and although I have yet to grok the new module layout, perhaps we can > throw it into something like libcloud.networking.lb? > > > > Yet, I am having a difficult time thinking of non-load balancer > networking components currently available. > > > > Well in EC2 you have Elastic IPs that could be managed inside a > networking package. > Correct, but the Elastic IP functionality is a bit different than the load balancer one. Elastic IPs are tied to a Node and some of the functionality already lives in the EC2 driver. In contrast, the load balancer functionality is currently totally decoupled from the Nodes. I am not totally sure, but for example, maybe we should also allow users to pass in a Node object instead of the IP address to the balancer_attach_node and other functions and the function would read private / public IP address from the Node object. But, yeah, in general I am for the libcloud.networking.* namespace. Grig >
