Thank you Salvatore for your feedback. Comments in-line.
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 23:26 +0200, Salvatore Orlando wrote: > Regarding the two approaches outlines in the top post, I found out > that the bullet "This is API versioning done the wrong way" appears in > both approaches. > Is this a mistake or intentional? No it was intentional. In my opinion they are both the wrong way. It would be best to be able to do a version at the resource layer but we can't since lbaas is a part of Neutron and its versions is directly tied to Neutron's. Another possibility is to have the resource look like: http(s)://neutron.endpoint/v2/lbaas/v2 This looks very odd to me though and sets a bad precedent. That is just my opinion though. So I wouldn't call this the right way either. Thus, I do not know of a "right" way to do this other than choosing the right "alternative" way. > > > From what I gather, the most reasonable approach appears to be > starting with a clean slate, which means having a new API living side > by side with the old one. > I think the naming collision issues should probably be solved using > distinct namespaces for the two API (the old one has /v2/lbaas as a > URI prefix I think, I have hardly any idea about what namespace the > new one should have) > I'm in agreement with you as well. The old one has /v2/lb as the prefix. I figured the new one could be /v2/lbaas which I think works out well. Another thing to consider that I did not think about in my original message is that a whole new load balancing agent will have to be created as well since its code is written with the pool being the root object. So that should be taken into consideration. So to be perfectly clear, starting with a clean slate would involve the following: 1. New loadbalancer extension 2. New loadbalancer plugin 3. New lbaas_agentscheduler extension 4. New agent_scheduler plugin. Also, I don't believe doing this would allow the two to be deployed at the same time. I believe the setup.cfg file would have to be modified to point to the new plugins. I could be wrong about that though. > > Finally, about deprecation - I see it's been agreed to deprecate the > current API in Juno. > I think this is not the right way of doing things. The limits of the > current API are pretty much universally agreed; on the other hand, it > is generally not advisable to deprecate an old API in favour of the > new one at the first iteration such API is published. My preferred > strategy would be to introduce the new API as experimental in the Juno > release, so that in can be evaluated, apply any feedback and consider > for promoting in K - and contextually deprecate the old API. > > > As there is quite a radical change between the old and the new model, > keeping the old API indefinitely is a maintenance burden we probably > can't afford, and I would therefore propose complete removal one > release cycle after deprecation. Also - since it seems to me that > there is also consensus regarding having load balancing move away into > a separate project so that it would not be tied anymore to the > networking program, the old API is pretty much just dead weight. > > Salvatore Good idea on that. I'll bring this up with everyone at the hackathon this week if it is not already on the table. Thanks again for your feedback. Brandon > > > On 11 June 2014 18:01, Kyle Mestery <mest...@noironetworks.com> wrote: > I spoke to Mark McClain about this yesterday, I'll see if I > can get > him to join the LBaaS team meeting tomorrow so between he and > I we can > close on this with the LBaaS team. > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Susanne Balle > <sleipnir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Do we know who has an opinion? If so maybe we can reach out > to them directly > > and ask them to comment. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Brandon Logan > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Well we got a few opinions, but not enough understanding of > the two > >> options to make an informed decision. It was requested > that the core > >> reviewers respond to this thread with their opinions. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Brandon > >> > >> On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 13:22 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote: > >> > Yep, I'd like to know here, too-- as knowing the answer > to this > >> > unblocks implementation work for us. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Brandon Logan > >> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote: > >> > Any core neutron people have a chance to give > their opinions > >> > on this > >> > yet? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Brandon > >> > > >> > On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:28 +0000, Buraschi, > Andres wrote: > >> > > Thanks, Kyle. Great. > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Kyle Mestery > [mailto:mest...@noironetworks.com] > >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 11:27 AM > >> > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for > usage > >> > questions) > >> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] > Implementing new > >> > LBaaS API > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Brandon Logan > >> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote: > >> > > > Hi Andres, > >> > > > I've assumed (and we know how assumptions > work) that the > >> > deprecation > >> > > > would take place in Juno and after a cyle or > two it would > >> > totally be > >> > > > removed from the code. Even if #1 is the way > to go, the > >> > old /vips > >> > > > resource would be deprecated in favor > of /loadbalancers > >> > and /listeners. > >> > > > > >> > > > I agree #2 is cleaner, but I don't want to > start on an > >> > implementation > >> > > > (though I kind of already have) that will > fail to be > >> > merged in because > >> > > > of the strategy. The strategies are pretty > different so > >> > one needs to > >> > > > be decided on. > >> > > > > >> > > > As for where LBaaS is intended to end up, I > don't want to > >> > speak for > >> > > > Kyle, so this is my understanding; It will > end up outside > >> > of the > >> > > > Neutron code base but Neutron and LBaaS and > other services > >> > will all > >> > > > fall under a Networking (or Network) > program. That is my > >> > > > understanding and I could be totally wrong. > >> > > > > >> > > That's my understanding as well, I think > Brandon worded it > >> > perfectly. > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Brandon > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 20:30 +0000, Buraschi, > Andres wrote: > >> > > >> Hi Brandon, hi Kyle! > >> > > >> I'm a bit confused about the deprecation > (btw, thanks for > >> > sending this Brandon!), as I (wrongly) assumed #1 > would be the > >> > chosen path for the new API implementation. I > understand the > >> > proposal and #2 sounds actually cleaner. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Just out of curiosity, Kyle, where is LBaaS > functionality > >> > intended to end up, if long-term plans are to > remove it from > >> > Neutron? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> (Nit question, I must clarify) > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thank you! > >> > > >> Andres > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > > >> From: Brandon Logan > [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com] > >> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:18 PM > >> > > >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> > > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] > Implementing new > >> > LBaaS API > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks for your feedback Kyle. I will be at > that meeting > >> > on Monday. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks, > >> > > >> Brandon > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 11:54 -0500, Kyle > Mestery wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Brandon > Logan > >> > > >> > <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > This is an LBaaS topic bud I'd like to > get some > >> > Neutron Core > >> > > >> > > members to give their opinions on this > matter so I've > >> > just > >> > > >> > > directed this to Neutron proper. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > The design for the new API and object > model for LBaaS > >> > needs to be > >> > > >> > > locked down before the hackathon in a > couple of weeks > >> > and there > >> > > >> > > are some questions that need answered. > This is > >> > pretty urgent to > >> > > >> > > come on to a decision on and to get a > clear strategy > >> > defined so > >> > > >> > > we can actually do real code during the > hackathon > >> > instead of > >> > > >> > > wasting some of that valuable time > discussing this. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Implementation must be backwards > compatible > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > There are 2 ways that have come up on > how to do this: > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > 1) New API and object model are created > in the same > >> > extension and > >> > > >> > > plugin as the old. Any API requests > structured for > >> > the old API > >> > > >> > > will be translated/adapted to the into > the new object > >> > model. > >> > > >> > > PROS: > >> > > >> > > -Only one extension and plugin > >> > > >> > > -Mostly true backwards compatibility -Do > not have to > >> > rename > >> > > >> > > unchanged resources and models > >> > > >> > > CONS: > >> > > >> > > -May end up being confusing to an > end-user. > >> > > >> > > -Separation of old api and new api is > less clear > >> > -Deprecating and > >> > > >> > > removing old api and object model will > take a bit > >> > more work -This > >> > > >> > > is basically API versioning the wrong > way > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > 2) A new extension and plugin are > created for the new > >> > API and > >> > > >> > > object model. Each API would live side > by side. New > >> > API would > >> > > >> > > need to have different names for > resources and object > >> > models from > >> > > >> > > Old API resources and object models. > >> > > >> > > PROS: > >> > > >> > > -Clean demarcation point between old and > new -No > >> > translation > >> > > >> > > layer needed -Do not need to modify > existing API and > >> > object > >> > > >> > > model, no new bugs -Drivers do not need > to be > >> > immediately > >> > > >> > > modified -Easy to deprecate and remove > old API and > >> > object model > >> > > >> > > later > >> > > >> > > CONS: > >> > > >> > > -Separate extensions and object model > will be > >> > confusing to > >> > > >> > > end-users -Code reuse by copy paste > since old > >> > extension and > >> > > >> > > plugin will be deprecated and removed. > >> > > >> > > -This is basically API versioning the > wrong way > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Now if #2 is chosen to be feasible and > acceptable > >> > then there are > >> > > >> > > a number of ways to actually do that. I > won't bring > >> > those up > >> > > >> > > until a clear decision is made on which > strategy > >> > above is the most acceptable. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > Thanks for sending this out Brandon. I'm > in favor of > >> > option #2 > >> > > >> > above, especially considering the > long-term plans to > >> > remove LBaaS > >> > > >> > from Neutron. That approach will help the > eventual end > >> > goal there. > >> > > >> > I am also curious on what others think, > and to this > >> > end, I've added > >> > > >> > this as an agenda item for the team > meeting next > >> > Monday. Brandon, > >> > > >> > it would be great to get you there for the > part of the > >> > meeting > >> > > >> > where we'll discuss this. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > Kyle > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > >> > > Brandon > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > >> > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> > > >> > > 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 > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> > > >> 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 > >> > > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> > > > 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 > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> > > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Stephen Balukoff > >> > Blue Box Group, LLC > >> > (800)613-4305 x807 > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > 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
