> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
> Sent: November 30, 2015 20:32
> On 11/30/15 at 07:32am, Sean Dague wrote:
> >On 11/24/2015 10:09 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> >> On 24 November 2015 at 15:00, Balázs Gibizer
> >> wrote:
> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:an
On 11/30/15 at 07:32am, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/24/2015 10:09 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 15:00, Balázs Gibizer
wrote:
From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
Sent: November 24, 2015 15:35
On 11/24/15 at 10:26am, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
From: Ryan Rossiter [mailto:rlros
On 11/24/2015 10:09 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 24 November 2015 at 15:00, Balázs Gibizer
> wrote:
>>> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
>>> Sent: November 24, 2015 15:35
>>> On 11/24/15 at 10:26am, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
> From: Ryan Rossiter [mailto:rlros...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>
On 11/24/15 at 11:19am, Ryan Rossiter wrote:
On 11/24/2015 8:35 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 11/24/15 at 10:26am, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
I think see your point, and it seems like a good way forward.
Let's turn the black list to
a white list. Now I'm thinking about creating a new Field type
On 11/24/2015 8:35 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 11/24/15 at 10:26am, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
I think see your point, and it seems like a good way forward. Let's
turn the black list to
a white list. Now I'm thinking about creating a new Field type
something like
WhiteListedObjectField which
> From: John Garbutt [mailto:j...@johngarbutt.com]
> Sent: November 24, 2015 16:09
> On 24 November 2015 at 15:00, Balázs Gibizer
> wrote:
> >> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
> >> Sent: November 24, 2015 15:35
> >> On 11/24/15 at 10:26am, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
> >> >> From: Ryan Ros
On 24 November 2015 at 15:00, Balázs Gibizer
wrote:
>> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
>> Sent: November 24, 2015 15:35
>> On 11/24/15 at 10:26am, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
>> >> From: Ryan Rossiter [mailto:rlros...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>> >> Sent: November 23, 2015 22:33
>> >> On 11/23/2
> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
> Sent: November 24, 2015 15:35
> On 11/24/15 at 10:26am, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
> >> From: Ryan Rossiter [mailto:rlros...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> >> Sent: November 23, 2015 22:33
> >> On 11/23/2015 2:23 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> >> > On 11/23/15 at 04:4
On 11/24/15 at 10:26am, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
From: Ryan Rossiter [mailto:rlros...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Sent: November 23, 2015 22:33
On 11/23/2015 2:23 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> On 11/23/15 at 04:43pm, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
>>> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
>>> Sent: November 23,
> From: Ryan Rossiter [mailto:rlros...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: November 23, 2015 22:33
> On 11/23/2015 2:23 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> > On 11/23/15 at 04:43pm, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
> >>> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
> >>> Sent: November 23, 2015 17:03
> >>>
> >>> On 11/23/15 a
On 11/23/2015 2:23 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 11/23/15 at 04:43pm, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
Sent: November 23, 2015 17:03
On 11/23/15 at 08:54am, Ryan Rossiter wrote:
>
>
>On 11/23/2015 5:33 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>>On 20 November 2015 at 09:37, Bal
On 11/23/15 at 04:43pm, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
Sent: November 23, 2015 17:03
On 11/23/15 at 08:54am, Ryan Rossiter wrote:
>
>
>On 11/23/2015 5:33 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>>On 20 November 2015 at 09:37, Balázs Gibizer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There is
On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 10:01 +, Alexis Lee wrote:
> gord chung said on Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:32:02PM -0500:
> > On 20/11/15 11:33 AM, Alexis Lee wrote:
> > >why would a producer spit out non-useful datapoints? If no-one cares
> > >or will ever care, it simply shouldn't be included.
> >
> > ..
> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
> Sent: November 23, 2015 17:03
>
> On 11/23/15 at 08:54am, Ryan Rossiter wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 11/23/2015 5:33 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> >>On 20 November 2015 at 09:37, Balázs Gibizer
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Minor version change shall not cause any pr
> From: Ryan Rossiter [mailto:rlros...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: November 23, 2015 15:54
> On 11/23/2015 5:33 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> > On 20 November 2015 at 09:37, Balázs Gibizer
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Minor version change shall not cause any problem for the consumer as
> the payload is backw
On 11/23/15 at 08:54am, Ryan Rossiter wrote:
On 11/23/2015 5:33 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 20 November 2015 at 09:37, Balázs Gibizer
wrote:
Minor version change shall not cause any problem for the consumer as the
payload is backward compatible between minor versions. So if the consumer doe
On 11/23/2015 5:33 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 20 November 2015 at 09:37, Balázs Gibizer
wrote:
Minor version change shall not cause any problem for the consumer as the
payload is backward compatible between minor versions. So if the consumer does
not need the new field then he/she does not
given John's reply, i think we should start a new thread? apologies for
hijacking log thread.
On 23/11/2015 5:01 AM, Alexis Lee wrote:
gord chung said on Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:32:02PM -0500:
On 20/11/15 11:33 AM, Alexis Lee wrote:
why would a producer spit out non-useful datapoints? If no-o
On 20/11/2015 5:12 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, gord chung wrote:
i think a lot of the complexity we have in versioning is that the
projects are too silo'd. i think some of the versioning issues would
be irrelevant if the producer knew it's consumers before sending
rather than
On 20 November 2015 at 09:37, Balázs Gibizer
wrote:
>> From: Matt Riedemann [mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>> Sent: November 19, 2015 23:29
>> On 11/19/2015 4:05 PM, Ryan Rossiter wrote:
>> > Reading through [1] I started getting worries in the back of my head
>> > about versioning these noti
gord chung said on Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:32:02PM -0500:
> On 20/11/15 11:33 AM, Alexis Lee wrote:
> >why would a producer spit out non-useful datapoints? If no-one cares
> >or will ever care, it simply shouldn't be included.
>
> ... right now the
> producer is just sending out a grab bag of data
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, gord chung wrote:
i think a lot of the complexity we have in versioning is that the projects
are too silo'd. i think some of the versioning issues would be irrelevant if
the producer knew it's consumers before sending rather than producers just
tossing out a chunk of data
On 20/11/15 11:33 AM, Alexis Lee wrote:
gord chung said on Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:59:33PM -0500:
just to clarify, the idea doesn't involve tailoring the notification
payload to ceilometer, just that if a producer is producing a
notification it knows contains a useful datapoint, the producer
s
gord chung said on Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:59:33PM -0500:
> just to clarify, the idea doesn't involve tailoring the notification
> payload to ceilometer, just that if a producer is producing a
> notification it knows contains a useful datapoint, the producer
> should tell someone explicitly 'this d
> From: Matt Riedemann [mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: November 19, 2015 23:29
> On 11/19/2015 4:05 PM, Ryan Rossiter wrote:
> > Reading through [1] I started getting worries in the back of my head
> > about versioning these notifications. The main concern being how can
> > the consum
On 19/11/15 08:53 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 11/19/2015 5:52 PM, gord chung wrote:
ceilometer cares. we listen to all notifications and build Measurement
and Event data from (some of) them. to be honest, i don't know if
changes in nova notifications have/are broken in ceilometer because
qu
On 11/19/2015 5:52 PM, gord chung wrote:
ceilometer cares. we listen to all notifications and build Measurement
and Event data from (some of) them. to be honest, i don't know if
changes in nova notifications have/are broken in ceilometer because
quite frankly there are far too many notification
ceilometer cares. we listen to all notifications and build Measurement
and Event data from (some of) them. to be honest, i don't know if
changes in nova notifications have/are broken in ceilometer because
quite frankly there are far too many notifications to test and track.
as a consumer of da
On 11/19/2015 4:05 PM, Ryan Rossiter wrote:
Reading through [1] I started getting worries in the back of my head
about versioning these notifications. The main concern being how can the
consumer know about the versions and what's different between them?
Because these versioned notification payl
Reading through [1] I started getting worries in the back of my head
about versioning these notifications. The main concern being how can the
consumer know about the versions and what's different between them?
Because these versioned notification payloads hold live nova objects,
there can be a
30 matches
Mail list logo