[openstack-dev] [tc] Active or passive role with our database layer
cdent+os at anticdent.org
Tue May 23 12:28:13 UTC 2017
On Tue, 23 May 2017, Sean Dague wrote:
> Do you have an example of an Open Source project that (after it was
> widely deployed) replaced their core storage engine for their existing
That's not the point here. The point is that new deployments may
choose to use a different one and old ones can choose to change if
they like (but don't have to) if storage is abstracted.
The notion of a "core storage engine" is not something that I see as
currently existing in OpenStack. It is clear it is something that at
least you and likely several other people would like to see.
But it is most definitely not something we have now and as I
responded to Monty, getting there from where we are now would be a
huge undertaking with as yet unproven value .
> 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.
Completely the opposite from my point of view. When something is as
frameworky as OpenStack is (perhaps accidently and probably
unfortunately) then _of course_ replaceable DBs are the norm,
expected, useful and potentially required to satisfy more use cases.
Adding specialization (tier 1?) is probably something we want and
want to encourage but it is not something we should build into the
"core" of the "product".
But there's that philosophical disagreement again. I'm not sure we
can resolve that. What I'm hoping is that by starting the ball
rolling other people will join in and people like you and me can
step out of the way.
 Of the issues described elsewhere in the thread the only one
which seems to be a bit sticking point is the trigger thing, and
there's significant disagreement on that being "okay".
Chris Dent ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ) https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent
More information about the OpenStack-dev