On 08/06/2014 04:13 PM, Sumit Naiksatam wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe the referential security group rules solve this problem (unless
I'm not understanding):
I think the disconnect is that you are comparing the way to current mapping
driver implements things for the reference implementation with the existing
APIs. Under this light, it's not going to look like there is a point to this
code being in Neutron since, as you said, the abstraction could happen at a
client. However, this changes once new mapping drivers can be added that
implement things differently.
Let's take the security groups example. Using the security groups API
directly is imperative ("put a firewall rule on this port that blocks this
IP") compared to a higher level declarative abstraction ("make sure these
two endpoints cannot communicate"). With the former, the ports must support
security groups and there is nowhere except for the firewall rules on that
port to implement it without violating the user's expectation. With the
latter, a mapping driver could determine that communication between these
two hosts can be prevented by using an ACL on a router or a switch, which
doesn't violate the user's intent and buys a performance improvement and
works with ports that don't support security groups.
Group based policy is trying to move the requests into the declarative
abstraction so optimizations like the one above can be made.
Kevin, you have captured the GBP value prop and difference very
succinctly. The major difference is in the declarative (GBP) versus
imperative (current) style of programming.
This has been stated very clearly and explicitly in the blueprint
spec. If one does not appreciate the difference or advantage of one
over the other, then this discussion is pointless.
"One" does appreciate the value of having porcelain APIs overlay a
plumbing API. This discussion was about the proper way and place to
introduce such functionality.
However, it seems to me that the end-goal of the GBP effort is
*actually* to provide a higher-layer API to Neutron that would
essentially enable proprietary vendors to entirely swap out all of
Neutron core for a new set of drivers that spoke proprietary device APIs.
If this is the end-goal, it should be stated more clearly, IMO.
The classic plumbing versus porcelain API conversation [1] is a good
one, and one worth having in the context of Neutron.
It's almost like some Neutron contributor folks are saying "let's add a
porcelain API so we can ditch all the existing plumbing APIs and replace
with our own stuff". And that's not what the point of plumbing vs.
porcelain is.
-jay
[1] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals-Plumbing-and-Porcelain
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
