[Engine-devel] restapi: 'gluster' prefix

[Shireesh Anjal]

On Tuesday 08 May 2012 10:45 AM, Itamar Heim wrote:
> 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.

Though bricks reside inside a host, they are logically part of a gluster 
volume, and hence should be sub-resources of the volume. 
[/api/.../(gluster)volumes/{(gluster)volume:id}/bricks].

> gluster/xxx is interesting as well, though not parallel to current 
> virt mappings (storage_domains, disks, etc., being root collections)

Separate gluster namespace does sound interesting, however it may not be 
feasible because we want the gluster volumes to be a collection 
sub-resource of the existing "cluster" resource. It can work if all the 
existing resources relevant to gluster are made available under it, 
which includes clusters and hosts. e.g.

/api/gluster/clusters/{cluster:id}/hosts/{host:id}/...
/api/gluster/clusters/{cluster:id}/volumes/{volume:id}/...

It'll be interesting to see what others think about this.

> shireesh - any thoughts about this approach:
> - do you want volumes as root collection, or only under cluster

Root collection for gluster volumes could be useful, though not 
critically important right now. We can revisit this at a later point of 
time.

> - if root, should these be glustervolumes like other root collection, 
> or the under a gluster collection.

This depends on whether we decide to go with the gluster namespace or not.

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

Thanks,
Shireesh