9:38 a.m.
thanks for bringing up this datatypes, I was not aware of them.
Are we allowed/supposed to use vendor specific types if appropriate to?
note: using this type will enforce a validity, right, but that does not mean that much
(from other code perspective) since one's still obliged to do all checking on all
other app layers avoiding calls from one layer to another with invalid data (calls to
backend are expensive, call to db are even more expensive considering lot of users working
simultaneously).
and will allow functionality such as comparison (is required).
maybe I do not understand this. Which mac ranges comparison is currently required
and not possible? Either I do not get it or I'm not aware of that use case.
m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag(a)redhat.com>
To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits(a)redhat.com>, users(a)ovirt.org,
devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:21:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha(a)redhat.com>
To: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits(a)redhat.com>
Cc: users(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:14:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC
Hi,
you're right, I do know about these problems. THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT A FINAL
CODE.
Why I did it this way: I come from agile environment.
This supposed to be FIRST increment. Not last. I hate waterfall style of work
-- almighty solution in one swing. I'd like to make sure, that main part,
that core principle is valid and approved. Making gui look nice is marginal.
So it is data structure for first increment. We can definitely think of
thousands of improvements, BUT this RFC already include more than 10 patch
sets and NO core reviews. How can I know, that others will approve this and
I'm not completely wrong?
about UX: it's wrong, but just fine for first increment. It can be used
somehow and that just sufficient. Note: even with table to enter each
from-to range there can be validation problem needed to be handled. Gui can
changed to better one, when we know, that this feature works. But meantime
others can test this feature functionality via this ugly, but very fast to
write, gui!
about DB: I'm aware of DB normalization, and about all implications my
"design" has. Yes, storing it in one varchar column is DB (very heavily
used) antipattern, just fine for first increment and very easy to fix.
There is another motivation for using a normalized data, specifically for
mac addresses - using the MAC addresses type [1] will enforce validity of
the input and will allow functionality such as comparison (is required).
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/datatype-net-types.html
If it's up to me, I'd like to wait for approval of
'core' part of this change
(lets call it spike), and finish remaining 'marginalities' after it. (just
to make myself clear proper db design ISN'T marginal measuring it using
absolute scale, but it IS very marginal related to situation where most of
code wasn't approved/reviewed yet).
m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits(a)redhat.com>
To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha(a)redhat.com>
Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org, users(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:22:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC
Now for users(a)ovirt.org indeed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits(a)redhat.com>
To: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha(a)redhat.com>
Cc: users(a)ovrit.org, devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:29:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Feature Page: Mac Pool per DC
Martin,
I'd like to propose a different approach on how the ranges to be defined and
stored.
Discussing this feature with Moti raised the alternative UX design:
Defining ranges could be added as a left-tab on create DC dialog and a
sub-tab on an existing DC. It would be a table of start and end address
fields and we can add a calculated # of MACs in the range and/or summary for
the DC.
Also that will make string parsing unneeded, prevent possible user mistakes
in the string format and make possible validating every field of the range
on the UI side easier.
As you can see on the screenshot you've attached even a single range doesn't
fit to the text box. In case of multiple ranges managing them in a single
line textbox would be very uncomfortable.
A range is an object with at least 2 members (start and end). And we have few
of these for each data center.
Storing a collection of the objects in a single field in a relational DB
seems a bit awkward to me.
That has few disadvantages:
1. is not normalized
2. make data validation nearly impossible
3. make querying the data very difficult
4. is restraining our ability to extend the object (e.g. a user might like to
give a description to a range)
So IMHO a satellite table with the FK to storage_pool would be a more robust
design.
Best regards,
____________________
Yevgeny Zaspitsky
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Israel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Mucha" <mmucha(a)redhat.com>
To: users(a)ovirt.org, devel(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:59:44 AM
Subject: [ovirt-devel] new feature
Hi,
I'd like to notify you about new feature, which allows to specify distinct
MAC pools, currently one per data center.
http://www.ovirt.org/Scoped_MacPoolManager
any comments/proposals for improvement are very welcomed.
Martin.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel