Comment 4 for bug 1450067
Revision history for this message
| Armando Migliaccio (armando-migliaccio) wrote | #4 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
Technically speaking we could do as Assaf suggested on comment #2, but that makes my teeth grind a bit.
Having said that, I think this issue is really collateral damage, and there is a much, much larger problem at play here: what happens if another mech driver wants to support DVR, but in a fundamentally different way? We're stuck with a pervasive DVR logic within the plugin itself that makes certain architectural assumptions, like the presence of agents (L2 and L3). This makes the work incredibly difficult, if not virtually impossible.
I have been toying with some ideas in the context of the L2/L3 decoupling and the security groups support for agentless mech drivers, but oh boy that's hard!
I really don't see any value in addressing this particular issue (even though it could be considered a decent cosmetic stop-gap fix), but I'd rather nail the larger objective of moving aways from extensions in the context of [1], and trying to disentangle control from management plane in the context of [2].
[1] https:/
[2] https:/