[Engine-devel] Hot-plug of disks and nics
Ori Liel
oliel at redhat.com
Wed Apr 11 08:34:32 UTC 2012
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ori Liel" <oliel at redhat.com>
>To: engine-devel at ovirt.org
>Cc: meyering at redhat.com, eglynn at redhat.com, gjansen at redhat.com, jhernand at redhat.com, "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>, "Roy Golan" <rgolan at redhat.com>, "Michael Kublin" <mkublin at redhat.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:32:51 AM
>Subject: Hot-plug of disks and nics
>
>On the subject of activate/deactivate disks and nics ("hot-plug"), I'd like to hear opinions about the correct modelling. I see two possible options (I will use disks as an example, but the chosen modelling should be the same for nics and disks).
>
>Option 1 - update:
>=================
>PUT
>.../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}
><disk>
> <activated>true</activated>
></disk>
>
>Pros:
>-----
>* RESTful, no need for new action
>
>Cons:
>-----
>* Inconsistent with other flows. We do not normally update status fields to perform actions. For example to run a VM, we do not update it's status to 'activated', we run an action (start).
>* Enables user to update disk properties AND activate/deactivate in the same operation. Updating certain disk properties is forbidden while the VM is up, but activating/deactivating the disk is allowed always. This requires business-logic in REST-API: if the user activates the disk and changes properties on it - REST-API must first change the properties and then activate the disk (if disk is activated first, update properties will fail). If, on the other hand, the user *deactivates* the disk and changes properties on it - REST-API must first deactivate the disk and then change the properties (changing properties while disk is still active will fail). This bug-prone logic is only necessary because when activate/deactivate is merged with update.
>
>
>
>Option 2 - action
>=================
>
>.../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/attach
Minor correction, I meant .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/activate
(not .../attach)
>
>Pros:
>----
>* Less RESTful
>
>Cons:
>-----
>* Consistent with other flows
>* Does not have the drawback of the additional business-logic described above
>
>
>Opinions?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ori.
More information about the Engine-devel
mailing list