You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> on 2013/07/01 09:47:51 UTC
[DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
H,
I've been trying to get a patch accepted and had some discussions to do it
in parts as well. I would like to refresh the first part:
vlans are now referred as vlan://<id>. I would like to change this to
vlan:<id>. This will changee addressing the id as a scheme specific part
instead of as a host. As a result it will be easier to fix the code to use
Nicira NVP and other sdn networks whereever vlans are used now. Doing this
will result in a patch that is a subset of my earlier patch. It touches a
lot of core code and tests but has been tested thoroughly for VPC gateways
with both vlans and Nicira NVP.
regards,
Daan
Re: [DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
Posted by Wei ZHOU <us...@gmail.com>.
Daan,
Please review patch: https://reviews.apache.org/r/13004/
Thanks. I can not add you as a reviewer.
-Wei
2013/7/27 Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> The original patch was committed under Alex' account. Work on the networks
> enums is far from done with https://reviews.apache.org/r/12849/. I
> commented on the one you are mentioning, Prasanna.
>
> regards,
> Daan
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > I raised this in a separate thread. Daan created a new patch
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/12849/ to address backward compat.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:tsp@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 11:12 AM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
> >>
> >> Daan,
> >>
> >> This broke the KVM setups last week on master. I couldn't find your
> commit-
> >> id for this change scanning the git logs. Toshiaki-san was looking at
> >> CLOUDSTACK-3682 regarding this change [1] where he makes the scheme
> >> backwards compatible to work with KVM agents of the past.
> >> Could you please have a look at the changeset?
> >>
> >> [1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/12985/
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:28:57AM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >> > The gain is that enums like BroadcastDomainType and IsolationType do
> >> > not have to check for different formats in the presented uri. It also
> >> > makes it more intiutive what the parts in the uri mean; vlan://<id>
> >> > would inmply that id is a hostname instead of a scheme specific
> identifier.
> >> >
> >> > I think I am reducing complexity, not introducing any. The present use
> >> > of uri for vlans is abuse of the construct, i don't think my proposed
> >> > new use is.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Hiroaki KAWAI
> >> <ka...@stratosphere.co.jp>wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Daan, I'm curious about what is the improvement of changing the vlan
> >> > > String format in URI?
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm -1 on pushing more complexity in URI, because that's abuse of
> >> > > URI class and sounds it's time to get rid of URI.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > (2013/07/01 16:47), Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> H,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I've been trying to get a patch accepted and had some discussions
> >> > >> to do it in parts as well. I would like to refresh the first part:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> vlans are now referred as vlan://<id>. I would like to change this
> >> > >> to vlan:<id>. This will changee addressing the id as a scheme
> >> > >> specific part instead of as a host. As a result it will be easier
> >> > >> to fix the code to use Nicira NVP and other sdn networks whereever
> >> > >> vlans are used now. Doing this will result in a patch that is a
> >> > >> subset of my earlier patch. It touches a lot of core code and tests
> >> > >> but has been tested thoroughly for VPC gateways with both vlans
> >> > >> and Nicira NVP.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> regards,
> >> > >> Daan
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Prasanna.,
> >>
> >> ------------------------
> >> Powered by BigRock.com
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
The original patch was committed under Alex' account. Work on the networks
enums is far from done with https://reviews.apache.org/r/12849/. I
commented on the one you are mentioning, Prasanna.
regards,
Daan
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
> I raised this in a separate thread. Daan created a new patch https://reviews.apache.org/r/12849/ to address backward compat.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:tsp@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 11:12 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
>>
>> Daan,
>>
>> This broke the KVM setups last week on master. I couldn't find your commit-
>> id for this change scanning the git logs. Toshiaki-san was looking at
>> CLOUDSTACK-3682 regarding this change [1] where he makes the scheme
>> backwards compatible to work with KVM agents of the past.
>> Could you please have a look at the changeset?
>>
>> [1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/12985/
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:28:57AM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> > The gain is that enums like BroadcastDomainType and IsolationType do
>> > not have to check for different formats in the presented uri. It also
>> > makes it more intiutive what the parts in the uri mean; vlan://<id>
>> > would inmply that id is a hostname instead of a scheme specific identifier.
>> >
>> > I think I am reducing complexity, not introducing any. The present use
>> > of uri for vlans is abuse of the construct, i don't think my proposed
>> > new use is.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Hiroaki KAWAI
>> <ka...@stratosphere.co.jp>wrote:
>> >
>> > > Daan, I'm curious about what is the improvement of changing the vlan
>> > > String format in URI?
>> > >
>> > > I'm -1 on pushing more complexity in URI, because that's abuse of
>> > > URI class and sounds it's time to get rid of URI.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > (2013/07/01 16:47), Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> H,
>> > >>
>> > >> I've been trying to get a patch accepted and had some discussions
>> > >> to do it in parts as well. I would like to refresh the first part:
>> > >>
>> > >> vlans are now referred as vlan://<id>. I would like to change this
>> > >> to vlan:<id>. This will changee addressing the id as a scheme
>> > >> specific part instead of as a host. As a result it will be easier
>> > >> to fix the code to use Nicira NVP and other sdn networks whereever
>> > >> vlans are used now. Doing this will result in a patch that is a
>> > >> subset of my earlier patch. It touches a lot of core code and tests
>> > >> but has been tested thoroughly for VPC gateways with both vlans
>> > >> and Nicira NVP.
>> > >>
>> > >> regards,
>> > >> Daan
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>>
>> --
>> Prasanna.,
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Powered by BigRock.com
>
RE: [DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
I raised this in a separate thread. Daan created a new patch https://reviews.apache.org/r/12849/ to address backward compat.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:tsp@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 11:12 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
>
> Daan,
>
> This broke the KVM setups last week on master. I couldn't find your commit-
> id for this change scanning the git logs. Toshiaki-san was looking at
> CLOUDSTACK-3682 regarding this change [1] where he makes the scheme
> backwards compatible to work with KVM agents of the past.
> Could you please have a look at the changeset?
>
> [1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/12985/
>
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:28:57AM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> > The gain is that enums like BroadcastDomainType and IsolationType do
> > not have to check for different formats in the presented uri. It also
> > makes it more intiutive what the parts in the uri mean; vlan://<id>
> > would inmply that id is a hostname instead of a scheme specific identifier.
> >
> > I think I am reducing complexity, not introducing any. The present use
> > of uri for vlans is abuse of the construct, i don't think my proposed
> > new use is.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Hiroaki KAWAI
> <ka...@stratosphere.co.jp>wrote:
> >
> > > Daan, I'm curious about what is the improvement of changing the vlan
> > > String format in URI?
> > >
> > > I'm -1 on pushing more complexity in URI, because that's abuse of
> > > URI class and sounds it's time to get rid of URI.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (2013/07/01 16:47), Daan Hoogland wrote:
> > >
> > >> H,
> > >>
> > >> I've been trying to get a patch accepted and had some discussions
> > >> to do it in parts as well. I would like to refresh the first part:
> > >>
> > >> vlans are now referred as vlan://<id>. I would like to change this
> > >> to vlan:<id>. This will changee addressing the id as a scheme
> > >> specific part instead of as a host. As a result it will be easier
> > >> to fix the code to use Nicira NVP and other sdn networks whereever
> > >> vlans are used now. Doing this will result in a patch that is a
> > >> subset of my earlier patch. It touches a lot of core code and tests
> > >> but has been tested thoroughly for VPC gateways with both vlans
> > >> and Nicira NVP.
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >> Daan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
>
> --
> Prasanna.,
>
> ------------------------
> Powered by BigRock.com
Re: [DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <ts...@apache.org>.
Daan,
This broke the KVM setups last week on master. I couldn't find your
commit-id for this change scanning the git logs. Toshiaki-san was
looking at CLOUDSTACK-3682 regarding this change [1] where he makes
the scheme backwards compatible to work with KVM agents of the past.
Could you please have a look at the changeset?
[1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/12985/
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:28:57AM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> The gain is that enums like BroadcastDomainType and IsolationType do not
> have to check for different formats in the presented uri. It also makes it
> more intiutive what the parts in the uri mean; vlan://<id> would inmply
> that id is a hostname instead of a scheme specific identifier.
>
> I think I am reducing complexity, not introducing any. The present use of
> uri for vlans is abuse of the construct, i don't think my proposed new use
> is.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Hiroaki KAWAI <ka...@stratosphere.co.jp>wrote:
>
> > Daan, I'm curious about what is the improvement of changing the
> > vlan String format in URI?
> >
> > I'm -1 on pushing more complexity in URI, because that's
> > abuse of URI class and sounds it's time to get rid of URI.
> >
> >
> >
> > (2013/07/01 16:47), Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >
> >> H,
> >>
> >> I've been trying to get a patch accepted and had some discussions to do it
> >> in parts as well. I would like to refresh the first part:
> >>
> >> vlans are now referred as vlan://<id>. I would like to change this to
> >> vlan:<id>. This will changee addressing the id as a scheme specific part
> >> instead of as a host. As a result it will be easier to fix the code to use
> >> Nicira NVP and other sdn networks whereever vlans are used now. Doing this
> >> will result in a patch that is a subset of my earlier patch. It touches a
> >> lot of core code and tests but has been tested thoroughly for VPC
> >> gateways
> >> with both vlans and Nicira NVP.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Daan
> >>
> >>
> >
--
Prasanna.,
------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com
Re: [DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
The gain is that enums like BroadcastDomainType and IsolationType do not
have to check for different formats in the presented uri. It also makes it
more intiutive what the parts in the uri mean; vlan://<id> would inmply
that id is a hostname instead of a scheme specific identifier.
I think I am reducing complexity, not introducing any. The present use of
uri for vlans is abuse of the construct, i don't think my proposed new use
is.
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Hiroaki KAWAI <ka...@stratosphere.co.jp>wrote:
> Daan, I'm curious about what is the improvement of changing the
> vlan String format in URI?
>
> I'm -1 on pushing more complexity in URI, because that's
> abuse of URI class and sounds it's time to get rid of URI.
>
>
>
> (2013/07/01 16:47), Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
>> H,
>>
>> I've been trying to get a patch accepted and had some discussions to do it
>> in parts as well. I would like to refresh the first part:
>>
>> vlans are now referred as vlan://<id>. I would like to change this to
>> vlan:<id>. This will changee addressing the id as a scheme specific part
>> instead of as a host. As a result it will be easier to fix the code to use
>> Nicira NVP and other sdn networks whereever vlans are used now. Doing this
>> will result in a patch that is a subset of my earlier patch. It touches a
>> lot of core code and tests but has been tested thoroughly for VPC
>> gateways
>> with both vlans and Nicira NVP.
>>
>> regards,
>> Daan
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] vlan uri format change
Posted by Hiroaki KAWAI <ka...@stratosphere.co.jp>.
Daan, I'm curious about what is the improvement of changing the
vlan String format in URI?
I'm -1 on pushing more complexity in URI, because that's
abuse of URI class and sounds it's time to get rid of URI.
(2013/07/01 16:47), Daan Hoogland wrote:
> H,
>
> I've been trying to get a patch accepted and had some discussions to do it
> in parts as well. I would like to refresh the first part:
>
> vlans are now referred as vlan://<id>. I would like to change this to
> vlan:<id>. This will changee addressing the id as a scheme specific part
> instead of as a host. As a result it will be easier to fix the code to use
> Nicira NVP and other sdn networks whereever vlans are used now. Doing this
> will result in a patch that is a subset of my earlier patch. It touches a
> lot of core code and tests but has been tested thoroughly for VPC gateways
> with both vlans and Nicira NVP.
>
> regards,
> Daan
>