Open Stack

Hi John,


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John Dewey <john at dewey.ws> wrote:

>  I have a similar concern.  The underlying driver may support different
> functionality, but the differentiators need exposed through the top level
> API.
>
Not really, whole point of the service is to abstract the user from
specifics of backend implementation. So for any feature there is a common
API, not specific to any implementation.

There probably could be some exception to this guide line that lays in the
area of admin API, but that's yet to be discussed.

>
> I see the SSL work is well underway, and I am in the process of defining
> L7 scripting requirements.  However, I will definitely need L7 scripting
> prior to the API being defined.
> Is this where vendor extensions come into play?  I kinda like the route
> the Ironic guy safe taking with a "vendor passthru" API.
>
I may say that core team has rejected 'vendor extensions' idea due to
potential non-uniform user API experience. That becomes even worse with
flavors introduced, because users don't know what vendor is backing up the
service they have created.

Thanks,
Eugene.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140325/59674e49/attachment.html>