cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: cidrs in acls
Date Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:12:10 GMT
thanks, will find some time to add those.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Kishan Kavala <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com> wrote:
> Daan,
>  I looked at the code in acl-item-cidrs. Persisting cidrs in separate table looks good.
> Pending items:
>
> 1. All references to NetworkACLItemVO.getSourceCidrList() should call NetworkACLItemDao.loadCidrs.
Cidr list won't be available otherwise.
> 2. Migration code should be added to upgrade path to move existing cidrs to new network_acl_item_cidr
table
>
> Regards,
> kishan
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 February 2014 8:33 PM
>> To: dev; Kishan Kavala
>> Subject: Re: cidrs in acls
>>
>> Kishan,
>>
>> Can you have a look  at the branch acl-item-cidrs. I made some code to
>> handle the cidrs from a separate table. I hardly think this can be enough and
>> would like to create a checklist on what I need to do next.
>> (item one is use the new transaction model;)
>>
>> thanks,
>> Daan
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Daan Hoogland
>> <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > That was what I thought as well. What was the retionale to join them
>> > into one field?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Kishan Kavala <Kishan.Kavala@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Daan,
>> >>   Similar to firewall_rules_cidrs, separate table can be used to store acl
>> cidrs. Maybe in network_acl_item_cidrs.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> kishan
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> >>> Sent: Friday, 17 January 2014 1:05 AM
>> >>> To: Kishan Kavala
>> >>> Cc: dev
>> >>> Subject: cidrs in acls
>> >>>
>> >>> H Kishan,
>> >>>
>> >>> I see you implemented CLOUDSTACK-763. it merges a lot of cidrs into
>> one field.
>> >>> The api doesn't check the field length. I enlarged the field in the
>> >>> create table statement to 2048 for the 4.3 branch. Can you help me
>> >>> think about a more solid solution, please. It seems to me those cidrs
>> shouldn't be joint into one field.
>> >>>
>> >>> regards,
>> >>> Daan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan



-- 
Daan

Mime
View raw message