On 07/05/2012 02:26 PM, Michael Pasternak wrote:
> +1 for #2 (but only for and new 3.1 props),
> -2 for removing (based on told above)
agreed with Livnat that we may implement collection of links
to clusters given network attached to instead of field.
+1
--
Michael Pasternak
RedHat, ENG-Vir
> -Original Message-
> From: engine-devel-boun...@ovirt.org
[mailto:engine-devel-boun...@ovirt.org]
> On Behalf Of Livnat Peer
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 1:39 PM
> To: Mike Kolesnik
> Cc: engine-devel; Simon Grinberg
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem
On 07/05/2012 01:43 PM, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On 05/07/12 13:23, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
On 07/05/2012 12:19 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>> I'll give you one scenario and I'm sure there are lot more:
>>> delete all unused networks
>>>
> not strong
- Original Message -
> From: "Mike Kolesnik"
> To: "engine-devel"
> Cc: "Simon Grinberg"
> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:43:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displaying of
> logical networks
>
On 07/05/2012 01:38 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> On 05/07/12 13:23, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
>>> On 07/05/2012 12:19 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> I'll give you one scenario and I'm sure there are lot more:
>> delete all unused networks
>>
not strong enough use case in my opinion
>>>
>>> i
- Original Message -
> On 05/07/12 13:23, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
> >> On 07/05/2012 12:19 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> I'll give you one scenario and I'm sure there are lot more:
> > delete all unused networks
> >
> >>> not strong enough use case in my opinion
> >>
> >> i do see
On 05/07/12 13:23, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
>> On 07/05/2012 12:19 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
I'll give you one scenario and I'm sure there are lot more:
> delete all unused networks
>
>>> not strong enough use case in my opinion
>>
>> i do see sense in this, and based on my experience of
> On 07/05/2012 12:19 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> >> I'll give you one scenario and I'm sure there are lot more:
> >> > delete all unused networks
> >> >
> > not strong enough use case in my opinion
>
> i do see sense in this, and based on my experience of
> closing ~5 bugs on this for SD and e
On 07/05/2012 12:19 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>> I'll give you one scenario and I'm sure there are lot more:
>> > delete all unused networks
>> >
> not strong enough use case in my opinion
i do see sense in this, and based on my experience of
closing ~5 bugs on this for SD and explaining like
On 05/07/12 12:13, Michael Pasternak wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 12:06 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>> On 05/07/12 11:56, Michael Pasternak wrote:
>>> On 07/05/2012 11:40 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 05/07/12 11:31, Michael Pasternak wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 10:51 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>> Actuall
On 07/05/2012 12:06 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> On 05/07/12 11:56, Michael Pasternak wrote:
>> On 07/05/2012 11:40 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>>> On 05/07/12 11:31, Michael Pasternak wrote:
On 07/05/2012 10:51 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> Actually the API has the same concept as you suggest for s
On 07/05/2012 12:00 PM, Simon Grinberg wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Michael Pasternak"
>> To: "Livnat Peer"
>> Cc: "engine-devel" , "Simon Grinberg"
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 20
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Pasternak"
> To: "Livnat Peer"
> Cc: "engine-devel" , "Simon Grinberg"
>
> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 11:56:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/dis
On 05/07/12 11:56, Michael Pasternak wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 11:40 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>> On 05/07/12 11:31, Michael Pasternak wrote:
>>> On 07/05/2012 10:51 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
Actually the API has the same concept as you suggest for storage
domains.
At the
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Pasternak"
> To: "Livnat Peer"
> Cc: "engine-devel" , "Simon Grinberg"
>
> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 11:31:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/dis
On 07/05/2012 11:40 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> On 05/07/12 11:31, Michael Pasternak wrote:
>> On 07/05/2012 10:51 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>>> Actually the API has the same concept as you suggest for storage
>>> domains.
>>> At the top level you don't have a status field, but under
On 05/07/12 11:31, Michael Pasternak wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 10:51 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>> Actually the API has the same concept as you suggest for storage
>> domains.
>> At the top level you don't have a status field, but under data
>> center level, where it's valid th
On 07/05/2012 10:51 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> Actually the API has the same concept as you suggest for storage
> domains.
> At the top level you don't have a status field, but under data
> center level, where it's valid then you get the status property.
>
uot;
> >>> Cc: "engine-devel"
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:38:46 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API
> >>> handling/displaying of logical networks
> >>>
> >>> On 07/04/2012 07:27 P
---
>>>>> From: "Livnat Peer"
>>>>> To: "Itamar Heim"
>>>>> Cc: "engine-devel"
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:06:37 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API
>>>
- Original Message -
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Itamar Heim"
> > To: "Simon Grinberg"
> > Cc: "engine-devel"
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:38:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel]
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Livnat Peer"
>To: "Simon Grinberg"
>Cc: "engine-devel"
>Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 8:58:20 AM
>Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displaying of
>lo
On 04/07/12 19:49, Simon Grinberg wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Itamar Heim"
>> To: "Simon Grinberg"
>> Cc: "engine-devel"
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:38:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel]
- Original Message -
> From: "Itamar Heim"
> To: "Simon Grinberg"
> Cc: "engine-devel"
> Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:38:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displaying of
> logical networks
&
On 07/04/2012 07:27 PM, Simon Grinberg wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Livnat Peer"
To: "Itamar Heim"
Cc: "engine-devel"
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:06:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displaying of
logic
- Original Message -
> From: "Livnat Peer"
> To: "Itamar Heim"
> Cc: "engine-devel"
> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:06:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displaying of
> logical networks
>
> O
On 03/07/12 21:28, Itamar Heim wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 10:30 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>> On 02/07/12 17:35, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I would like to hear opinions about a behaviour that I think is
>>> problematic in
>>> REST API handling of logical networks.
>>>
>>> -- Intro --
>>> Tod
On 07/03/2012 10:30 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 02/07/12 17:35, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
Hi All,
I would like to hear opinions about a behaviour that I think is
problematic in
REST API handling of logical networks.
-- Intro --
Today in the REST API we are exposing two collections for "logical
networ
On 07/03/2012 01:21 PM, Avi Tal wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Itamar Heim"
To: "Avi Tal"
Cc: "Mike Kolesnik" , "engine-devel"
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:00:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displayin
- Original Message -
> From: "Itamar Heim"
> To: "Avi Tal"
> Cc: "Mike Kolesnik" , "engine-devel"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:00:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displaying of
>
On 07/03/2012 10:06 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 10:00 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
>> On 07/03/2012 09:51 AM, Avi Tal wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> Why do we keep holding this Top level collection instead of having each
>>> network related under his datacenter (/api/datacenter/id/networks)???
>>
>> wh
On 07/02/2012 05:35 PM, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to hear opinions about a behaviour that I think is problematic in
> REST API handling of logical networks.
>
> -- Intro --
> Today in the REST API we are exposing two collections for "logical
> network" related entities.
>
>
On 02/07/12 17:35, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to hear opinions about a behaviour that I think is
> problematic in
> REST API handling of logical networks.
>
> -- Intro --
> Today in the REST API we are exposing two collections for "logical
> network" related entities.
>
> Fi
On 07/03/2012 10:00 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 07/03/2012 09:51 AM, Avi Tal wrote:
...
Why do we keep holding this Top level collection instead of having
each network related under his datacenter
(/api/datacenter/id/networks)???
why do we keep VMs as top level? they only exist in data center
On 07/03/2012 09:51 AM, Avi Tal wrote:
...
Why do we keep holding this Top level collection instead of having each network
related under his datacenter (/api/datacenter/id/networks)???
why do we keep VMs as top level? they only exist in data center...
why do we keep Clusters as top level? the
Comments inline
- Original Message -
> From: "Mike Kolesnik"
> To: "engine-devel"
> Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 5:35:52 PM
> Subject: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displaying of
> logical networks
>
>
>
>
>
Hi All,
I would like to hear opinions about a behaviour that I think is problematic in
REST API handling of logical networks.
-- Intro --
Today in the REST API we are exposing two collections for "logical
network" related entities.
First is a top level collection which is out of any cont
37 matches
Mail list logo
