On 05/07/2012 11:52 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> On 05/07/2012 07:06 PM, Shireesh Anjal wrote:
>> On Monday 07 May 2012 02:06 AM, Ayal Baron wrote:
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> i can't see any justification for the 'gluster' prefix,
>>>> as this is only additional /service/ provided by the project,
>>>> and Gluster now is a part of the RHT.
>>> I believe there needs to be an indication which service this is
>>> about.
>>> If we will support provisioning other storage types which also
>>> have
>>> volumes then we'd want a way to differentiate.
>>> However, isn't there a way to simply add gluster as the name
>>> space?
>>> i.e. somthing like: /api/gluster/.../volumes ? (instead of
>>> 'cluster'
>>> as it is redundant imho)
>>
>> A gluster volume is a cluster level entity, and hence
>> "/api/.../clusters/{cluster:id}" seems like the right parent URI
>> for the
>> gluster volumes collection resource.
>
> that's true for all other root entities as well:
> - VM is DC/cluster level
> - template is DC level
> - disk is storage domain level
> - network is DC level
> - hosts are cluster level (for now)
>
> yet all of them have their own root collections as well.
>
> I think glustervolumes seems safest/most reasonable for now (either
> at
> cluster level or root level as well)
does it make sense to also have gluster/bricks ? if so, I would nest it, i.e.
gluster/{volumes|bricks|...}
bricks are host level, afair they are not used like this at all.
gluster/xxx is interesting as well, though not parallel to current virt
mappings (storage_domains, disks, etc., being root collections)
shireesh - any thoughts about this approach:
- do you want volumes as root collection, or only under cluster
- if root, should these be glustervolumes like other root collection, or
the under a gluster collection.