----- Original Message ----- From: "Eoghan Glynn" <eglynn(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Ori Liel" <oliel(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: meyering(a)redhat.com, jhernand(a)redhat.com, "Geert Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Pasternak" <mpastern(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Kublin" <mkublin(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:42:04 PM Subject: Re: Floating Disks implementation in REST-API > The "Floating Disks" feature makes disks into stand-alone entities: a > given disk may be attached to a VM (as all disks are today), or it > may be not attached to any VM, which makes it a floating disk > (http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/FloatingDisk) > > To implement attach/detach of disk to/from VM in REST-API, we intend > to introduce two new actions: > > POST .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/attach > POST .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/detach > > Since we try not to add new actions unless we have to, I want to > explain why I believe that these actions are necessary. > The other implementation would use existing add/remove flows: > > POST .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks - if the disk was > passed with an ID, attach it to this VM. If no id - create a new > disk. > DELETE .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} - *ambiguity > problem, need to add a flag* > > We can't break existing API, so regular DELETE must remove the disk, > as it does today. To detach a disk using DELETE we'd have to add a > flag to the DETELE command. This is quite risky, because if the user > forgets to pass this flag, the disk which he wanted to detach will > actually be deleted. > > Theoretically, if we could break the API, the following modelling > would resolve the ambiguity and perhaps be ideal: > - POST/DELETE disk in root context means create or delete it. > - POST/DELETE disk in VM context means attach or detach it. > But we don't have the privilege of breaking the API. > > Considering all of the above - and the fact that attach/detach nics > to/from host is also implemented using actions - I believe that the > new actions are justifiable. > > Any comments? Hi Ori, I tend to agree that overloading the DELETE verb to either delete or detach the disk is error-prone, and justifies the addition of new detach action in this case. However, I'm wondering whether it would be better, if somewhat asymmetric, to still avoid the attach action, e.g. instead use: POST /api/vms/{vm:id}/disks <disk id="{disk:id}"/> => attach disk POST /api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/detach => detach disk The reasoning here would be that: POST /api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/attach would tend to break the sub-collection idiom in my mind (as the disk in question is not yet part of the disks sub-collection of that VM, prior to the attachment actually occuring).

Cheers, Eoghan

On 04/09/2012 05:14 PM, Ori Liel wrote: > The "Floating Disks" feature makes disks into stand-alone entities: a > given disk may be attached to a VM (as all disks are today), or it may > be not attached to any VM, which makes it a floating disk > (http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/FloatingDisk) > > To implement attach/detach of disk to/from VM in REST-API, we intend > to introduce two new actions: > > POST .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/attach > POST .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/detach > > Since we try not to add new actions unless we have to, I want to > explain why I believe that these actions are necessary. > The other implementation would use existing add/remove flows: > > POST .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks - if the disk was > passed with an ID, attach it to this VM. If no id - create a new disk. > DELETE .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} - *ambiguity > problem, need to add a flag* > > We can't break existing API, so regular DELETE must remove the disk, > as it does today. To detach a disk using DELETE we'd have to add a > flag to the DETELE command. This is quite risky, because if the user > forgets to pass this flag, the disk which he wanted to detach will > actually be deleted. > > Theoretically, if we could break the API, the following modelling > would resolve the ambiguity and perhaps be ideal: > - POST/DELETE disk in root context means create or delete it. > - POST/DELETE disk in VM context means attach or detach it. > But we don't have the privilege of breaking the API. > > Considering all of the above - and the fact that attach/detach nics > to/from host is also implemented using actions - I believe that the > new actions are justifiable. > > Any comments? I assume that a floating disk can be attached to 0 VMs as well, right?

So i would assume we get a top-level /disks collection correct??

And I assume that collection would only list floating disks?

In my view, backwards compatible DELETE semantics for a floating disk aren't that bad: DELETE /vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} => Accept a <detach>true|false</detach> argument. => Defaults to "false" for compatibility.

This means that DELETE will by default really DELETE any non-floating disk. That is compatibility with today. For safety, implement this: => When deleting a disk that is floating, fail unless <force> is also set to "true". And always fail if one of the other VMs is running (obviously). To attach a disk and make it float, use POST and you and Eoghan described. To detach a disk, use DELETE with <detach>true</detach>. To delete a non-attached, floating disks, use: DELETE /disks/{disk:id} To delete an attached, floating disk, use: DELETE /vm/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} with <force>true</force>; OR

DELETE /disks/{disk:id} To create a non-attached, floating, disk, use: POST /disks Regards, Geert _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

----- Original Message ----- > On 10/04/12 14:35, Geert Jansen wrote: >> >> >> On 04/09/2012 05:14 PM, Ori Liel wrote: >>> The "Floating Disks" feature makes disks into stand-alone >>> entities: a >>> given disk may be attached to a VM (as all disks are today), or it >>> may >>> be not attached to any VM, which makes it a floating disk >>> (http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/FloatingDisk) >>> >>> To implement attach/detach of disk to/from VM in REST-API, we >>> intend >>> to introduce two new actions: >>> >>> POST .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/attach >>> POST .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/detach >>> >>> Since we try not to add new actions unless we have to, I want to >>> explain why I believe that these actions are necessary. >>> The other implementation would use existing add/remove flows: >>> >>> POST .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks - if the disk >>> was >>> passed with an ID, attach it to this VM. If no id - create a new >>> disk. >>> DELETE .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} - *ambiguity >>> problem, need to add a flag* >>> >>> We can't break existing API, so regular DELETE must remove the >>> disk, >>> as it does today. To detach a disk using DELETE we'd have to add a >>> flag to the DETELE command. This is quite risky, because if the >>> user >>> forgets to pass this flag, the disk which he wanted to detach will >>> actually be deleted. >>> >>> Theoretically, if we could break the API, the following modelling >>> would resolve the ambiguity and perhaps be ideal: >>> - POST/DELETE disk in root context means create or delete it. >>> - POST/DELETE disk in VM context means attach or detach it. >>> But we don't have the privilege of breaking the API. >>> >>> Considering all of the above - and the fact that attach/detach >>> nics >>> to/from host is also implemented using actions - I believe that >>> the >>> new actions are justifiable. >>> >>> Any comments? >> >> I assume that a floating disk can be attached to 0 VMs as well, >> right? > > floating == attached to 0 VMs > >> So i would assume we get a top-level /disks collection correct?? > > Yes > >> And I assume that collection would only list floating disks? > > IMO the /disks collection includes all disks in the setup regardless > if > they are floating or attached to VM/s > >> >> In my view, backwards compatible DELETE semantics for a floating >> disk >> aren't that bad: >> >> DELETE /vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} >> >> => Accept a<detach>true|false</detach> argument. >> => Defaults to "false" for compatibility. >> > > I think that ideally : > > Detach a disk from VM (becomes floating): > DELETE api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} > > Delete a disk ('real' delete)" > DELETE api/disks/{disk:id} Assuming this also works when the disk is attached to a VM then the above seems to me like the simplest and clearest path. i.e. DELETE in VM context detaches

DELETE in DISKS context really deletes POST in VM context attaches (and creates if does not yet exist) POST in DISKS context creates floating. Only thing is that to create and attach you post to VM but the complementary detach and delete is delete from disks (i.e. not symmetrical). > > I understand that it is changing the current API behavior, it means > that > a user who deleted disks in 3.0 will end up only detaching them in > 3.1, > is that something we can't 'live' with? > > For attach, I would go with Eoghan approach: > > POST /api/vms/{vm:id}/disks > <disk id="{disk:id}"/> => attach disk > > > >> This means that DELETE will by default really DELETE any >> non-floating >> disk. That is compatibility with today. For safety, implement this: >> >> => When deleting a disk that is floating, fail unless<force> is >> also >> set to "true". And always fail if one of the other VMs is running >> (obviously). >> >> To attach a disk and make it float, use POST and you and Eoghan >> described. >> >> To detach a disk, use DELETE with<detach>true</detach>. >> >> To delete a non-attached, floating disks, use: >> >> DELETE /disks/{disk:id} >> >> To delete an attached, floating disk, use: >> >> DELETE /vm/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} with<force>true</force>; OR > > ^^ isn't that considered breaking the API? we require force flag for > deleting disk which we did not require before. > >> DELETE /disks/{disk:id} >> >> To create a non-attached, floating, disk, use: >> >> POST /disks >> >> Regards, >> Geert >> _______________________________________________ >> Engine-devel mailing list >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

In my view, backwards compatible DELETE semantics for a floating disk aren't that bad: DELETE /vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} => Accept a <detach>true|false</detach> argument. => Defaults to "false" for compatibility. This means that DELETE will by default really DELETE any non-floating disk. That is compatibility with today. For safety, implement this: => When deleting a disk that is floating, fail unless <force> is also set to "true". And always fail if one of the other VMs is running (obviously). To attach a disk and make it float, use POST and you and Eoghan described. To detach a disk, use DELETE with <detach>true</detach>. To delete a non-attached, floating disks, use: DELETE /disks/{disk:id} To delete an attached, floating disk, use: DELETE /vm/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} with <force>true</force>; OR DELETE /disks/{disk:id}

> I assume that a floating disk can be attached to 0 VMs as well, right? > So i would assume we get a top-level /disks collection correct?? And I > assume that collection would only list floating disks? Indeed, there will be a root collection. but I do not see a reason why this collection should only show floating disks. I tend to think it should show all disks in the system. Keep in mind that we're going towards Shared disks, meaning the same disk may be used by two VMs, so it makes sense to show such a disk in the root collection, along with the information of which VMs it's attached to.

> > In my view, backwards compatible DELETE semantics for a floating disk > aren't that bad: > > DELETE /vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id} > > => Accept a<detach>true|false</detach> argument. > => Defaults to "false" for compatibility. > > This means that DELETE will by default really DELETE any non-floating > disk. That is compatibility with today. For safety, implement this: > > => When deleting a disk that is floating, fail unless<force> is also > set to "true". And always fail if one of the other VMs is running > (obviously). > I Agree with Eoghan that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits in this case, for the reasons Eoghan said.