Re: Resolving the multiple controller code bases issue


Chris Wright <chrisw@...>
 

* Rob Sherwood (rob.sherwood@...) wrote:
I definitely recognize that there is a lot of pressure (from press,
developers, even from ourselves) to show that the daylight community can
make progress and produce useful code, but I'm not sure that artificially
pushing for a final decision on the controllers (one way or
another)---especially in this two weeks time frame---is the right way to do
it.

It's my read that the vast majority of people (users, developers, even a
number of TSC members) are trying to come up to speed with _what a
controller is_ and what is it supposed to do, before even starting on the
harder question of "which code base is a better controller". More so,
while I agree with the rough characterization of your three options ( (i)
let two controllers exist indefinitely, (ii) merge the controllers, (iii)
vote to pick one), we don't yet even know enough to answer the technical
feasibility of these options or which one will net result in the best code.
The problem we have right now is no clear path forward to a single core
code base. As a consequence, we can't really even point would-be users
or developers to a place to go to help us push down that path.

For example, Colin Dixon and I have been talking about potentially merging
controllers at the SAL level. This would mean in net-virt's perspective
that the SAL would look like an application, and from the 'controller'
project prospective the net-virt controller would look like a SAL plugin.

I think this approach potentially has legs and would solve a lot of
problems (and potentially not even be that much work) but we're going to
need some time to investigate it.
Sounds like an excellent thing to get to discuss@ asap. We should
be operating in post early, post often mode. I'd particularly like
to understand (not here, but on the proper list), how this actually
concentrates our effort.

Last, if we're concerned about being to produce useful code, I would like
to submit that working towards some specific user-facing use-case for Q3
(e.g., a full quantum stack with network virtualization support) is a
better goal, both from an impact perspective but also because it's less
divisive.
How is it less divisive? And how does doing it in parallel help focus
our effort?

thanks,
-chris

Join TSC@lists.opendaylight.org to automatically receive all group messages.