[ovirt-devel] Registration duplication?

[Dan Kenigsberg]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 04:04:38PM +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Douglas Schilling Landgraf
> <dougsland at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 07/22/2015 09:42 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> I've seen that some new code landed to support Engine registration
> >> using the generic registration approach.
> >>
> >> But it seem that we now have two implementations:
> >>
> >> 1. vdsm-tool register [0]
> >> 2. ovirt-register [1]
> >>
> >> To reduce code duplication I'd suggest to drop one of these approaches
> >> before we enter 3.6.
> >> Or are there reasons for keeping both of them?
> >
> > I believe not.
> 
> Great.
> 
> >> My take is to keep ovirt-register which is independent and would allow
> >> us to add plain hosts to Engine (host-deploy is then taking care of
> >> the rest IIUIC).
> >> The vdsm-tool approach reuqires vdsm to be installed.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > +1 for dropping vdsm-tool register verb. It started as alternative and later
> > we merged everything in ovirt-register project which is the generic
> > registration. I can send a patch to drop it soon.
> 
> Right.
> So let's see what Dan replies and then we can possibly drop the
> duplicate effort.

To answer properly, I'll need to know about the current state of
ovirt-register.

Is ready and available? I know that long ago someone opened complex
RFEs for it, but the implementation never got into fruition.

I'd like to see vdsm-reg gone, and I'd like to see it gone now. With
vdsm-tool register merged, I don't think there's any remaining effort on
that front (except of removing the dead vdsm-reg code out of vdsm, but
this applies to both).

I don't mind at all seeing ovirt-node use ovirt-register instead of
vdsm-tool, and I wouldn't realy care if `vdsm-tool register`'s
implementation is scrapped in favor of calling ovirt-register.

Dan.