[Engine-devel] restapi: 'gluster' prefix

[Ori Liel]

>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.

According to Geert, a key question in deciding whether gluster-volumes 
should exist in root collection is: are volumes potentially moveable 
between clusters? 

The answer, according to Shireesh, is no, and therefore
Geert believes that the volumes should be under cluster. 
(Geert or Shireesh - if I misquoted you, please correct me). 

Bricks logically compose volumes, and thus are modelled under volumes. 

>_______________________________________________
>Engine-devel mailing list
>Engine-devel at ovirt.org
>http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel