I would like to add a question to John's list
----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Schwarz" <jschw...@redhat.com> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:22:33 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [LBaaS] LBaaS v2 API syntax > additions/changes > > > > On 08/25/2014 10:06 PM, Brandon Logan wrote: > >> > >> 2. Therefor, there should be some configuration to specifically enable > >> either version (not both) in case LBaaS is needed. In this case, the > >> other version is disabled (ie. a REST query for non-active version > >> should return a "not activated" error). Additionally, adding a > >> 'lb-version' command to return the version currently active seems like a > >> good user-facing idea. We should see how this doesn't negatively effect > >> the db migration process (for example, allowing read-only commands for > >> both versions?) > > > > A /version endpoint can be added for both v1 and v2 extensions and > > service plugins. If it doesn't already exist, it would be nice if > > neutron had an endpoint that would return the list of loaded extensions > > and their versions. > > > There is 'neutron ext-list', but I'm not familiar enough with it or with > the REST API to say if we can use that. > >> > >> 3. Another decision that's needed to be made is the syntax for v2. As > >> mentioned, the current new syntax is 'neutron lbaas-<object>-<command>' > >> (against the old 'lb-<object>-<action>'), keeping in mind that once v1 > >> is deprecated, a syntax like 'lbv2-<object>-<action>' would be probably > >> unwanted. Is 'lbaas-<object>-<command>' okay with everyone? > > > > That is the reason we with with lbaas because lbv2 looks ugly and we'd > > be stuck with it for the lifetime of v2, unless we did another migration > > back to lb for it. Which seemed wrong to do, since then we'd have to > > accept both lbv2 and lb commands, and then deprecate lbv2. > > > > I assume this also means you are fine with the prefix in the API > > resource of /lbaas as well then? > > > I don't mind, as long there is a similar mechanism which disables the > non-active REST API commands. Does anyone disagree? > >> > >> 4. If we are going for different API between versions, appropriate > >> patches also need to be written for lbaas-related scripts and also > >> Tempest, and their maintainers should probably be notified. > > > > Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you mean by > > "different API between version." > > > The intention was that the change of the user-facing API also forces > changes on other levels - not only neutronclient needs to be modified > accordingly, but also tempest system tests, horizon interface regarding > LBaaS... 5. If we accept #3 and #4 to mean that the python-client API and CLI must be changed/updated and so does Tempest clients and tests, then what about other projects consuming the Neutron API? How are Heat and Ceilometer going to be affected by this change? Yair > > _______________________________________________ > 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