+1 I also prefer option 2 in general with slight inclination to 2-B -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 9:21 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] Object statuses
So I am resurrecting this topic now because we put this discussion on a a brief hold, but are now discussing it again and need to decide asap. We've all agreed we need a provisioning_status and operating_status fields. We now need to decide where to show these statuses to the user. Option 1: Show the statuses directly on the entity. Option 2-A: Show a status tree only on the load balancer object, but not on any entities. Option 2-B: Expose a resource for a GET request that will return that status tree. Example: GET /lbaas/loadbalancers/{LB_UUID}/statuses Option 1 is probably what most people are used to but it doesn't allow for sharing of objects, and when/if sharing is enabled, it will cause a break in contract and a new version of the API. So it would essentially disallow object sharing. This requires a lot less work to implement. Option 2-* can be done with or without sharing, and when/if object sharing is enabled it wont break contract. This will require more work to implement. My personal opinion is in favor of Option 2-B, but wouldn't argue with 2-A either. Thanks, Brandon __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev