[openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer
sean at dague.net
Tue May 23 11:57:01 UTC 2017
On 05/23/2017 07:23 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>> Some operations have one and only one "right" way to be done. For
>> those operations if we take an 'active' approach, we can implement
>> them once and not make all of our deployers and distributors each
>> implement and run them. However, there is a cost to that. Automatic
>> and prescriptive behavior has a higher dev cost that is proportional
>> to the number of supported architectures. This then implies a need to
>> limit deployer architecture choices.
> That "higher dev cost" is one of my objections to the 'active'
> approach but it is another implication that worries me more. If we
> limit deployer architecture choices at the persistence layer then it
> seems very likely that we will be tempted to build more and more
> power and control into the persistence layer rather than in the
> so-called "business" layer. In my experience this is a recipe for
> ossification. The persistence layer needs to be dumb and
Do you have an example of an Open Source project that (after it was
widely deployed) replaced their core storage engine for their existing
I do get that when building more targeted things, this might be a value,
but I don't see that as a useful design constraint for OpenStack.
More information about the OpenStack-dev