Svetoslav Neykov created JCLOUDS-1309:
-----------------------------------------
Summary: GCE SecurityGroupExtension implementation
Key: JCLOUDS-1309
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1309
Project: jclouds
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: jclouds-compute
Affects Versions: 2.0.1
Reporter: Svetoslav Neykov
I'd like to try implement the {{SecurityGroupExtension}} interface for GCE.
Looking at the documentation it seems that the combination of firewall rules
and node tags is flexible enough to allow us implement the functionality.
It's been tried before but the implementation's been removed (see \[1]). It's
main drawback is that for each security group the code creates a new network.
Currently the biggest mismatch between the jclouds abstraction and the GCE
functionality is that its firewall rules must be attached to a network.
Here's my suggested approach:
* IpPermission roughly corresponds to a firewall rule
* SecurityGroup is just a collection of firewall rules (there's no cloud
resources that corresponds to it). The firewall rules of a security group share
the same prefix - {{jclouds-sg-<sg name>-<permission suffix>}}. They all belong
to the same network.
* *They key bit*: {{createSecurityGroup}} accepts a {{Location}} with a scope
of {{Network}}, returning a custom implementation of {{SecurityGroup}} which
keeps a reference to the network, so all {{IpPermission}} objects added
subsequently will be on it.
While the suggested approach fits into the {{SecurityGroupExtension}} interface
it's different enough from the other implementations that it might not be worth
the trouble of implementing and supporting (even be harmful as users might be
surprised by the different behaviour).
Would be interested in hearing other opinions on the approach.
\[1]
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/commit/2ba48dc9f66416b5d8515bd6a07b27a213d89a7c
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
