2015-07-15 5:14 GMT+08:00 Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> > > On 7/14/2015 3:43 PM, Cale Rath wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I created a patch to fail on the proxy call to Neutron for used limits, >> found here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199604/ >> >> This patch was done because of this: >> >> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/project_scope.html?highlight=proxy#no-more-api-proxies >> , >> where it’s stated that Nova shouldn’t be proxying API calls. >> >> That said, Matt Riedemann brings up the point that this breaks the case >> where Neutron is installed and we want to be more graceful, rather than >> just raising an exception. Here are some options: >> >> 1. fail - (the code in the patch above) >> 2. proxy to neutron for floating ips and security groups - that's what >> the original change was doing back in havana >> 3. return -1 or something for floatingips/security groups to indicate >> that we don't know, you have to get those from neutron >> >> Does anybody have an opinion on which option we should do regarding API >> proxies in this case? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Cale Rath >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > I prefer the proxy option, despite that we don't want to do more proxies > to other services, it's the least of all evils here in my opinion. > > I don't think we can do #1, that breaks anyone using those APIs and is > using Neutron, so it's a non-starter. > agree > > #3 is an API change in semantics which would at least be a microversion > and is kind of clunky. > agree too~ > > For #2 we at least have the nova.network.base_api which we didn't have in > Havana when I was originally working on this, that would abstract the > neutron-specific cruft out of the nova-api code. The calls to neutron were > pretty simple from what I remember - we could just resurrect the old patch: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43822/ +1, but looks like this need new microversion also. It means after 2.x version, this api value is valid for neutron, before 2.x version, don't trust this api... > > > Another option is #4, we mark the bug as won't fix and we log a warning if > neutron is configured saying some of the resources aren't going to be > correct, use the neutron API to get information for quotas on security > groups, floating IPs, etc. That's also kind of gross IMO, but it's an > option. if we plan to deprecate network proxy api in no longer future, this is easy option. > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Matt Riedemann > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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