Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 1, 2023. It is now read-only.

Conversation

smashwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Implementing the disk-config extension for OpenStack and Rackspace compute.

@smashwilson smashwilson added this to the v0.2.0 milestone Oct 23, 2014
@smashwilson smashwilson changed the title [wip] Extension: Disk Config Extension: Disk Config Oct 23, 2014
@smashwilson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jrperritt, @jamiehannaford: This is ready for a review!

It's also a good example of what I had in mind for the Rackspace compute provider: I've implemented servers.CreateOpts in rackspace/compute/v2/servers as the union of base OpenStack CreateOpts and all of the extensions that we support, for convenience. This lets us delegate to the base OpenStack logic, but also explicitly control any places that we deviate from spec. It also makes it more convenient for Rackspace users, because they don't need to know what extensions Rackspace supports and doesn't support, or even which bits are extensions and which aren't.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe add in the testing.Short() bit here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added from your branch in the rebase 😉

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In several of the other services, we just have Extract. I know that there is one that doesn't fit that mold (ExtractDiskConfig) but for consistency, we should either change those to reflect this way, or vice versa.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is an extension, though. I was following @jamiehannaford's lead on naming here.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, ok. I'm fine with having it like that. I'm just thinking that having 2 ways of writing an extraction will force the users to know if they're using an extension or not.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm inclined to agree. The logic is that you can perform one Get call, stash the GetResult, and use different Extract functions to pull data relevant to different extensions from it without having to make additional calls.

I think the extension mechanisms we're using need a little work, still - it's awkward to compose extensions and it's all a little too manual right now. I'm not sure what I'd rather see, though, and I think it'll need to wait for post-release. I'll try to articulate my thoughts about what I'd like to accomplish in a discussion issue, possibly after these next two weeks are over and we have 1.0 shipped 😄

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. Any changes can wait until a later release.

@jrperritt
Copy link
Contributor

Waiting for green...

@jrperritt
Copy link
Contributor

and there we go 🚢

jrperritt added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 23, 2014
@jrperritt jrperritt merged commit a80ea95 into rackspace:v0.2.0 Oct 23, 2014
@smashwilson smashwilson deleted the disk-config branch October 23, 2014 18:40
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 9e87a92 on smashwilson:disk-config into * on rackspace:v0.2.0*.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants