Hi Adam, My comments inline:
> 1. We shouldn't be looking at the current model and deciding which object > is the root object, or what object to rename as a "loadbalancer"... That's > totally backwards! *We don't define which object is named the > "loadbalancer" by looking for the root object -- we define which object is > the root by looking for the object named "loadbalancer".* I had hoped that > was clear from the JSON examples in our API proposal, but I think maybe > there was too much focus on the object model chart, where this isn't nearly > as clearly communicated. > 2. As I believe I have also said before, if I'm using "<X> as a Service" > then I expect to get back an object of type "<X>". I would be very > frustrated/confused if, as a user, LBaaS returned me an object of type > "VIP" when I POST a Create for my new load balancer. On this last point, I > feel like I've said this enough times that I'm beating a dead horse... > I think we definitely should be looking at existing API/BBG proposal for the root object. The question about whether we need additional 'Loadbalancer' resource or not is not a question about terminology, so (2) is not a valid argument. What really matters in answering the question about 'loadbalancer' resource is do we need multiple L2 ports per single loadbalancer. If we do - that could be a justification to add it. Right now the common perception is that this is not needed and hence, 'loadbalancer' is not required in the API or obj model. Thanks, Eugene.
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
