On May 8, 2014, at 8:01 AM, Eugene Nikanorov
<enikano...@mirantis.com<mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com>>
wrote:
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.
It's pretty awkward to have a REST api that doesn't have a resource
representation of the object its supposed to be creating and handing out. It's
really awkward to identify a loadbalancer by vip id.
Thats like trying going to a car dealership API and only being able to look up
a car by its parking spot ID.
Do you believe Neutron/Lbaas is actually "LoadBalancerVip as a Service"
which would entirely explain the disconnect we are having with you.
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.
Are you saying that we should only have a loadbalancer resource only in the
case where we want it to span multiple L2 networks as if it were a router? I
don't see how you arrived at that conclusion. Can you explain further.
Thanks Carlos.
Thanks,
Eugene.
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
