Date
1 - 10 of 10
[release] Micro distribution tech discussion
|
Samuel Kontriš <samuel.kontris@...>
Hello everyone, this is a first DRAFT of the ODL project proposal for lighty.io - it's still work in progress. In case you have any questions or if you think that something is missing, then let us know. Any feedback is welcome.
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Lighty
Regards Samuel
Od: Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...>
Odoslané: sobota, 19. októbra 2019 1:29:22 Komu: Release; tsc Predmet: Re: [release] Micro distribution tech discussion For those interested, we will be using next Monday TWS slot to present Lumina work progress on micro-distribution topic (mostly odl-simple at this moment).
BR/Luis
|
|
|
|
Abhijit Kumbhare
Samuel, Can you also send the proposal to the following email address to begin the 2 week review period? project-proposals <project-proposals@...> Of course one thing we should consider going forward - should we just require the proposal sent to the TSC mailing list? The separate mailing list for proposals made sense in the earlier days of very cluttered TSC mailing list - but may not be so much now. Thanks, Abhijit
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:50 AM Samuel <samuel.kontris@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Abhijit Kumbhare
Samuel,
When do you think you will be ready to move this project proposal beyond draft to an actual proposal by sending it to the mailing list for project proposals <project-proposals@...>? Thanks, Abhijit
|
|
|
|
Tejas Nevrekar
Hi all, I did not find a way to add comments to the project page draft - https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Lighty. Is there an alternate page or can we do email? Regards, Tejas. S. Nevrekar Mobile: +91-99805 31339 Bangalore, INDIA.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:14 PM Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote: Samuel,
|
|
|
|
Abhijit Kumbhare
Historically we have done it over email.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:43 AM Tejas Nevrekar <tejas.nevrekar@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Tejas Nevrekar
Sure Abhijit. I will pose my comments/suggestions here then: 1. Will this project upstream the existing lighty components for the SB plugins like netconf, openflowplugin? 2. From an implementation standpoint, do we need to keep this component as a separate project? In stead it could be integrated deeper into ODL's existing implementations. That way there will not need to be a separate project for these aspects. So we borrow lighty principles and restructure existing projects like netconf, openflowplugin, bgpcep to strip OSGi, move to annotations, relevant constructors. 3. When used with other DIs like guice or spring, we need to study the impact of invoking via the guice-bindings or spring-bindings approach v/s natively enabling these bindings from the respective projects ground up. Robert/Samuel, any thoughts please? Thanks, -Tejas.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:52 AM Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Samuel <samuel.kontris@...>
Hello everyone,
Tejas, thank you for your feedback. Regarding your comments:
Regards
Samuel
Od: Tejas Nevrekar <tejas.nevrekar@...>
Odoslané: piatok, 8. novembra 2019 11:09:37 Komu: Abhijit Kumbhare Kópia: tsc Predmet: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [release] Micro distribution tech discussion Sure Abhijit. I will pose my comments/suggestions here then:
1. Will this project upstream the existing lighty components for the SB plugins like netconf, openflowplugin?
2. From an implementation standpoint, do we need to keep this component as a separate project? In stead it could be integrated deeper into ODL's existing implementations. That way there will not need to be a separate project for these aspects. So we borrow
lighty principles and restructure existing projects like netconf, openflowplugin, bgpcep to strip OSGi, move to annotations, relevant constructors.
3. When used with other DIs like guice or spring, we need to study the impact of invoking via the guice-bindings or spring-bindings approach v/s natively enabling these bindings from the respective projects ground up.
Robert/Samuel, any thoughts please?
Thanks,
-Tejas.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:52 AM Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Robert Varga
On 07/11/2019 20:22, Abhijit Kumbhare wrote:
Historically we have done it over email.Hello, I have updated the proposal to spell out gaps in our knowledge of the problem/solution domains here: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Lighty#Open_questions We will need to provide some amount of answers in these before the proposal can be considered complete (and thus subject to review and approval). Please send in your comments to this thread, or provide edits of the page in case you have concrete data to be added to the existing text. Also, please indicate your willingness to work on the project by listing yourself in the committed resources -- based on the outcome of the collaboration, we (i.e. community) will pick a set of committers to make sure the project end up executing properly. Thanks, Robert
|
|
|
|
Luis Gomez
Hi all,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I think we are losing some momentum to get something done in this release. Let me comment on the questions that are blocking this project: 1) Relationship with other projects I do not understand the first paragraph, can you elaborate or put an example of the problem. Regarding the use-case packaging, can we just do the "Netconf controller" in Magnesium, that seems to be simple enough (included in Kernel projects) and what most folks I know are looking for. Later we can decide on more package flavors 2) Monlithic vs Modular service: This seems more like a future improvement than an issue so no blocking or am I wrong? 3) Dependency injection: What does Lighty support as dependency injection today? we can start with that to simplify. 4) Dynamic configuration: Yes, we need changes in the existing projects to deal with the new packaging, but can we just start with Netconf in Magnesium and progressively add more projects in future releases? 5) CLI Integration: Similar to 4) those projects interested in participating in the new packaging will have to go through some changes and/or lose some features but can we just focus on Netconf for this release? As a summary, I do not think we have to resolve every project integration problem before we start doing anything here. Lets pick a simple use case like Netconf, start working on it, learn with the process and after add more projects. Does it make sense or am I missing something here? BR/Luis
On Nov 12, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Robert Varga <nite@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Abhijit Kumbhare
Do you guys want this on tomorrow's TSC call or do you want to continue over email?
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:44 PM Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote: Hi all,
|
|
|