Mailing List Archive: Common configuration issue

Common configuration issue

Jun 18, 2012, 7:14 AM

Post #1 of 5 (1459 views)

Hi,
Over the last few weeks I have been trying to add a patch that will
enable Quantum to make use of the common configuration interface
provided by the openstack common library. The task is proving very
challenging. At the moment we have the following:
1. OVS and Linux bridge agents using local conf data strcuture (via the
cfg API) [reviewed and approved]
2. Quantum service using global cfg.CONF [in review]
The problem with the above review is that we have yet to get a concensus
on what we want to do. Do we want to merge the plugin.ini configuration
files into the quantum configuration file? If so then I feel that we are
able to move forward. If not I need to invest time and address the
current review comments. These are valid if and only if we decide to
remain with the separate in files. I am in favor of us moving to one
configuration file if possible.
My plan is to do the following (comments will be greatly appreciated) -
each in a separate task to try and keep the changes to a minimum:
1. Finally get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8101/ finished
2. Move the paste configuration to a separate file
3. If relevant merge the plugin.ini into the common configuration file.
Thanks
Gary

--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack
Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: Common configuration issue [ In reply to ]

dan at nicira

Jun 18, 2012, 9:36 AM

Post #2 of 5 (1425 views)

Permalink

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> Over the last few weeks I have been trying to add a patch that will enable
> Quantum to make use of the common configuration interface provided by the
> openstack common library. The task is proving very challenging. At the
> moment we have the following:
> 1. OVS and Linux bridge agents using local conf data strcuture (via the
> cfg API) [reviewed and approved]
> 2. Quantum service using global cfg.CONF [in review]
> The problem with the above review is that we have yet to get a concensus
> on what we want to do. Do we want to merge the plugin.ini configuration
> files into the quantum configuration file? If so then I feel that we are
> able to move forward. If not I need to invest time and address the current
> review comments. These are valid if and only if we decide to remain with
> the separate in files. I am in favor of us moving to one configuration file
> if possible.
>

I too am in favor of moving to one configuration file, and we've had a
long-standing bug in quantum to do so. Is there a particular review
comment of someone expressing concern with this approach? If so, I'd like
to see the comment to better understand the concern, otherwise, I think we
should move forward with the consolidation.

dan

> My plan is to do the following (comments will be greatly appreciated) -
> each in a separate task to try and keep the changes to a minimum:
> 1. Finally get https://review.openstack.org/#**/c/8101/<https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8101/>finished
> 2. Move the paste configuration to a separate file
> 3. If relevant merge the plugin.ini into the common configuration file.
> Thanks
> Gary
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~**netstack<https://launchpad.net/~netstack>
> Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~**netstack<https://launchpad.net/~netstack>
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelp<https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
>

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Wendlandt
Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com
twitter: danwendlandt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Common configuration issue [ In reply to ]

gkotton at redhat

Jun 18, 2012, 9:54 AM

Post #3 of 5 (1426 views)

Permalink

On 06/18/2012 07:36 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton@redhat.com
> <mailto:gkotton@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Over the last few weeks I have been trying to add a patch that
> will enable Quantum to make use of the common configuration
> interface provided by the openstack common library. The task is
> proving very challenging. At the moment we have the following:
> 1. OVS and Linux bridge agents using local conf data strcuture
> (via the cfg API) [reviewed and approved]
> 2. Quantum service using global cfg.CONF [in review]
> The problem with the above review is that we have yet to get a
> concensus on what we want to do. Do we want to merge the
> plugin.ini configuration files into the quantum configuration
> file? If so then I feel that we are able to move forward. If not I
> need to invest time and address the current review comments. These
> are valid if and only if we decide to remain with the separate in
> files. I am in favor of us moving to one configuration file if
> possible.
>
>
> I too am in favor of moving to one configuration file, and we've had a
> long-standing bug in quantum to do so. Is there a particular review
> comment of someone expressing concern with this approach? If so, I'd
> like to see the comment to better understand the concern, otherwise, I
> think we should move forward with the consolidation.

We are currently stuck on the implementation of the method
find_config_file. I did not address this as the intention was to move to
one common configuration file. Today, following comments, I made a few
changes today to address this. Sadly there have broken the tests for the
plugins. I will revert and hopefully we can get a consensus to move
forward to a unified configuration file.
Can we discuss this at the meeting this evening?
Thanks
Gary
>
> dan
>
> My plan is to do the following (comments will be greatly
> appreciated) - each in a separate task to try and keep the changes
> to a minimum:
> 1. Finally get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8101/ finished
> 2. Move the paste configuration to a separate file
> 3. If relevant merge the plugin.ini into the common configuration
> file.
> Thanks
> Gary
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack
> <https://launchpad.net/%7Enetstack>
> Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net
> <mailto:netstack@lists.launchpad.net>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack
> <https://launchpad.net/%7Enetstack>
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dan Wendlandt
> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com <http://www.nicira.com>
> twitter: danwendlandt
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

Re: Common configuration issue [ In reply to ]

dan at nicira

Jun 18, 2012, 11:23 AM

Post #4 of 5 (1419 views)

Permalink

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton@redhat.com> wrote:

> **
> On 06/18/2012 07:36 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Over the last few weeks I have been trying to add a patch that will
>> enable Quantum to make use of the common configuration interface provided
>> by the openstack common library. The task is proving very challenging. At
>> the moment we have the following:
>> 1. OVS and Linux bridge agents using local conf data strcuture (via the
>> cfg API) [reviewed and approved]
>> 2. Quantum service using global cfg.CONF [in review]
>> The problem with the above review is that we have yet to get a concensus
>> on what we want to do. Do we want to merge the plugin.ini configuration
>> files into the quantum configuration file? If so then I feel that we are
>> able to move forward. If not I need to invest time and address the current
>> review comments. These are valid if and only if we decide to remain with
>> the separate in files. I am in favor of us moving to one configuration file
>> if possible.
>>
>
> I too am in favor of moving to one configuration file, and we've had a
> long-standing bug in quantum to do so. Is there a particular review
> comment of someone expressing concern with this approach? If so, I'd like
> to see the comment to better understand the concern, otherwise, I think we
> should move forward with the consolidation.
>
>
> We are currently stuck on the implementation of the method
> find_config_file. I did not address this as the intention was to move to
> one common configuration file. Today, following comments, I made a few
> changes today to address this. Sadly there have broken the tests for the
> plugins. I will revert and hopefully we can get a consensus to move forward
> to a unified configuration file.
> Can we discuss this at the meeting this evening?
>

Yes, let's discuss this later today. To be clear, is the contention in the
review over combining (plugins.ini and quantum.conf) or collapsing
plugin-specific config files into quantum.conf?

Dan

> Thanks
> Gary
>
>
> dan
>
>
>
>> My plan is to do the following (comments will be greatly appreciated) -
>> each in a separate task to try and keep the changes to a minimum:
>> 1. Finally get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8101/ finished
>> 2. Move the paste configuration to a separate file
>> 3. If relevant merge the plugin.ini into the common configuration file.
>> Thanks
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack
>> Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack
>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dan Wendlandt
> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com
> twitter: danwendlandt
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Wendlandt
Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com
twitter: danwendlandt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Common configuration issue [ In reply to ]

gkotton at redhat

Jun 19, 2012, 12:33 AM

Post #5 of 5 (1419 views)

Permalink

On 06/18/2012 09:23 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton@redhat.com
> <mailto:gkotton@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 06/18/2012 07:36 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton@redhat.com
>> <mailto:gkotton@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> Over the last few weeks I have been trying to add a patch
>> that will enable Quantum to make use of the common
>> configuration interface provided by the openstack common
>> library. The task is proving very challenging. At the moment
>> we have the following:
>> 1. OVS and Linux bridge agents using local conf data
>> strcuture (via the cfg API) [reviewed and approved]
>> 2. Quantum service using global cfg.CONF [in review]
>> The problem with the above review is that we have yet to get
>> a concensus on what we want to do. Do we want to merge the
>> plugin.ini configuration files into the quantum configuration
>> file? If so then I feel that we are able to move forward. If
>> not I need to invest time and address the current review
>> comments. These are valid if and only if we decide to remain
>> with the separate in files. I am in favor of us moving to one
>> configuration file if possible.
>>
>>
>> I too am in favor of moving to one configuration file, and we've
>> had a long-standing bug in quantum to do so. Is there a
>> particular review comment of someone expressing concern with this
>> approach? If so, I'd like to see the comment to better
>> understand the concern, otherwise, I think we should move forward
>> with the consolidation.
>
> We are currently stuck on the implementation of the method
> find_config_file. I did not address this as the intention was to
> move to one common configuration file. Today, following comments,
> I made a few changes today to address this. Sadly there have
> broken the tests for the plugins. I will revert and hopefully we
> can get a consensus to move forward to a unified configuration file.
> Can we discuss this at the meeting this evening?
>
>
> Yes, let's discuss this later today. To be clear, is the contention
> in the review over combining (plugins.ini and quantum.conf) or
> collapsing plugin-specific config files into quantum.conf?

The contention of the review is the search path for the quantum plugin
ini files. I do not think that this is critical due to the following
reasons:
1. There are additional changes we should make once the initial
configuration support is in. The first is to move the paste config out
of the configuration file. The second is to ensure that the plugin ini
files are read into the global configuration data structure (this is
where we will ensure that all of the paths are inline).
2. We have a working solution for setups and unit tests. In my opinion
it is better to have fewer and isolated changes instead of huge patches
that take forever to get approved (as in this case)

This morning I submitted a patch for devstack that supports all of the
above. I hope that it does not wait endlessly for reviews.

Thanks
Gary
>
> Dan
>
> Thanks
> Gary
>
>>
>> dan
>>
>> My plan is to do the following (comments will be greatly
>> appreciated) - each in a separate task to try and keep the
>> changes to a minimum:
>> 1. Finally get https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8101/ finished
>> 2. Move the paste configuration to a separate file
>> 3. If relevant merge the plugin.ini into the common
>> configuration file.
>> Thanks
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack
>> <https://launchpad.net/%7Enetstack>
>> Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net
>> <mailto:netstack@lists.launchpad.net>
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack
>> <https://launchpad.net/%7Enetstack>
>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Dan Wendlandt
>> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com <http://www.nicira.com>
>> twitter: danwendlandt
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dan Wendlandt
> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com <http://www.nicira.com>
> twitter: danwendlandt
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>