cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alena Prokharchyk <>
Subject Re: Review Request 15489: Adding protocol parameter to loadbalancer response
Date Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:28:11 GMT
Syed, that sounds correct to me. Container should have the properties algorithm, protocol,
public Ip, etc. While LoadBalancer represents only the rule itself (the port combination)


From: Syed Ahmed <<>>
Reply-To: Syed Ahmed <<>>
Date: Friday, November 15, 2013 9:21 AM
To: Murali Reddy <<>>, Alena
Prokharchyk <<>>
Cc: Syed Ahmed <<>>, cloudstack <<>>
Subject: Re: Review Request 15489: Adding protocol parameter to loadbalancer response

This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:

On November 15th, 2013, 1:53 p.m. UTC, Murali Reddy wrote:

Syed I dont think you added 'protocol' to createLoadBalancerRule. There should not be 'protocol'
in the LoadBalancerContainer?

I actually did add the 'protocol' parameter to createLoadBalancerRule. This maps to `lb_protocol`
field in the `load_balancing_rules` table.

I added getLbProtocol() to LoabalacnerContainer because I thought that is the right palce
as other parameters like algorithm ( getAlgorithm() ) scheme etc are present here.

Does this sound correct?

- Syed

On November 13th, 2013, 6:08 p.m. UTC, Syed Ahmed wrote:

Review request for cloudstack, Alena Prokharchyk and Murali Reddy.
By Syed Ahmed.

Updated Nov. 13, 2013, 6:08 p.m.

Repository: cloudstack-git

Adding protocol parameter to Loadbalancer Response


  *   api/src/com/cloud/network/rules/ (e6dadca)
  *   api/src/com/cloud/network/rules/ (9d5ea59)
  *   api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/response/ (0f18097)
  *   engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/lb/ (37a747e)
  *   server/src/com/cloud/api/ (903c485)

View Diff<>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message