Open Stack

(inline)

On Dec 19, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Matt Dietz wrote:

> I have the exact same concerns.
> 

It's a legitimate  concern.

> My fear is the extension mechanism ended up as a passive aggressive way of
> skirting the API contract. Let's face it: no matter how staunchly you
> defend a contract, the set of functionality the client consumes *is* the
> API as far as any customer is concerned. In short, code(or implementation)
> wins. 

With or without extensions,  there is no way that you can stop a vendor from adding product differentiation features because it's an open source project. At least with the extension mechanism there are ways to advertise the feature as an extension and let it be know that it's an extension, etc...

> 
> If there are any vendor specific extensions in either repo, they should
> probably be removed.

It's up to you guys, but not sure that I agree.  If a vendor provides a niche extension and it's generally useful, I don't see the harm in having it there as an option.  Though at that point I suppose you can simply promote it as an OpensStack extension.

> Meanwhile, we need to promote things that make sense.
> Lastly, I think the rest of the argument needs to be handled by the board
> and how they want to protect what Openstack means.
> 

Right.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Troyer <dtroyer at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:24 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Novaclient and Extensions
> 
>> And given that
>> ALL of this development and project is corporate supported and they
>> all want to stand out in this field I fear I am on the wrong side of
>> that issue.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev