Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [OpenDaylight Discuss] Important: Inventory model migration proposal (instead of inventory to topology model migration)

2016-05-09 Thread Anil Vishnoi 
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Robert Varga  wrote:

> On 05/02/2016 11:52 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > This will require some change by the dependent projects (some
> > modifications in the dependency declaration in the pom files) - however
> > it will be less change than a complete migration to the topology model.
> > *If you have any thoughts about the change - please provide your
> thoughts*.
> >
> > We inside of OpenFlow Plugin project like this change (as opposed to the
> > inventory to topology model migration change for which there were no
> > volunteers due to the effort and lack of obvious benefits).
>
> I have to disagree on the 'lack of benefits' part. Having aligned base
> models is critical for end user experience. The topology model is
> implemented by multiple SB plugins to expose exactly the same semantics
> as the inventory model.
>
> From modeling perspective, the inventory model is a strict subset of
> concepts expressed in the topology model.
>
> Keeping two models for the same thing is pure overhead from maintenance
> and interoperability point of view.
>
​I don't really see any major maintenance and interoperability issues and i
believe once we move inventory model to openflowplugin, we avoid any future
issues as well.
If i weigh the benefit of removing these models and disrupting the
downstream projects ​Vs containing it within plugin with minimal
disruption, i don't really see any value in removing inventory models.

>
> The inventory model must be eliminated if we ever hope to have any sort
> of consistence across SB plugins. This has been discussed and agreed
> multiple times, can we please stick to the plan?
> ​
>
​I am not sure we can achieve 100% consistency across SB plugin, because
IMO we can't force any southbound plugin from using these inventory models
in future as well.
About sticking to the plan, sure we can, i am just throwing alternate
options, where we can manage this situation without doing any major
disruption and i don't really see any major issue with it. ​


> ​
>
>

>
> Since there is a proposal to eliminate the OFP version-agnostic model
> (which is tied to topology via the new plugin), I think it would be very
> logical to attach the OFJ models to topology as a replacement and simple
> gradually desupport the inventory model -- old stuff works as long as
> old models do.
>
​This looks like a middle path, but i believe it's bit long term​ solution,
but make sense to me.

>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> disc...@lists.opendaylight.org
> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>


-- 
Thanks
Anil
___
openflowplugin-dev mailing list
openflowplugin-dev@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev

Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [OpenDaylight Discuss] Important: Inventory model migration proposal (instead of inventory to topology model migration)

2016-05-09 Thread Abhijit Kumbhare 
In-line.

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Robert Varga  wrote:

> On 05/02/2016 11:52 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > This will require some change by the dependent projects (some
> > modifications in the dependency declaration in the pom files) - however
> > it will be less change than a complete migration to the topology model.
> > *If you have any thoughts about the change - please provide your
> thoughts*.
> >
> > We inside of OpenFlow Plugin project like this change (as opposed to the
> > inventory to topology model migration change for which there were no
> > volunteers due to the effort and lack of obvious benefits).
>
> I have to disagree on the 'lack of benefits' part. Having aligned base
> models is critical for end user experience. The topology model is
> implemented by multiple SB plugins to expose exactly the same semantics
> as the inventory model.
>

Abhijit>> I mentioned "lack of obvious benefits" rather than "lack of
benefits" :).


> From modeling perspective, the inventory model is a strict subset of
> concepts expressed in the topology model.
>
> Keeping two models for the same thing is pure overhead from maintenance
> and interoperability point of view.
>
> The inventory model must be eliminated if we ever hope to have any sort
> of consistence across SB plugins. This has been discussed and agreed
> multiple times, can we please stick to the plan?
>

Abhijit>> The biggest problem with this has been that no one seems to have
warmed up enough to the idea to start working on it - especially in Boron.
I myself will welcome it if there were folks working on it to make it
happen.


>
> Since there is a proposal to eliminate the OFP version-agnostic model
> (which is tied to topology via the new plugin), I think it would be very
> logical to attach the OFJ models to topology as a replacement and simple
> gradually desupport the inventory model -- old stuff works as long as
> old models do.
>

Abhijit>> I think what you are saying is - that we keep the inventory as-is
in Boron (due to no one picking up the work); and merge this as part of
cleanup of the OFP-OFJ models (assuming that proposal becomes a reality).
This sounds an interesting idea - I have added it as a bullet to the
proposal as a point of discussion. If this does not become a reality - then
we can come back to Anil's proposal.


> Thanks,
> Robert
>
>
___
openflowplugin-dev mailing list
openflowplugin-dev@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev

Re: [openflowplugin-dev] [OpenDaylight Discuss] Important: Inventory model migration proposal (instead of inventory to topology model migration)

2016-05-09 Thread Robert Varga 
On 05/02/2016 11:52 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 

[snip]

> This will require some change by the dependent projects (some
> modifications in the dependency declaration in the pom files) - however
> it will be less change than a complete migration to the topology model.
> *If you have any thoughts about the change - please provide your thoughts*.
> 
> We inside of OpenFlow Plugin project like this change (as opposed to the
> inventory to topology model migration change for which there were no
> volunteers due to the effort and lack of obvious benefits).

I have to disagree on the 'lack of benefits' part. Having aligned base
models is critical for end user experience. The topology model is
implemented by multiple SB plugins to expose exactly the same semantics
as the inventory model.

From modeling perspective, the inventory model is a strict subset of
concepts expressed in the topology model.

Keeping two models for the same thing is pure overhead from maintenance
and interoperability point of view.

The inventory model must be eliminated if we ever hope to have any sort
of consistence across SB plugins. This has been discussed and agreed
multiple times, can we please stick to the plan?

Since there is a proposal to eliminate the OFP version-agnostic model
(which is tied to topology via the new plugin), I think it would be very
logical to attach the OFJ models to topology as a replacement and simple
gradually desupport the inventory model -- old stuff works as long as
old models do.

Thanks,
Robert



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
openflowplugin-dev mailing list
openflowplugin-dev@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev