+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

Reply via email to