<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><br></div><div>On Nov 2, 2014, at 22:21, Dolph Mathews <<a href="mailto:dolph.mathews@gmail.com">dolph.mathews@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Sunday, November 2, 2014, John Dennis <<a href="mailto:jdennis@redhat.com">jdennis@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It was hoped we could simply borrow the Keystone mapping<br>
implementation but it was found to be too limiting and not sufficiently<br>
expressive. We could not find another alternative so we designed a new<br>
mapper which is described in this PDF.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>In what way was it too limited? Did you consider extending the existing grammar and extending the existing mapping engine?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I am very interested in knowing the limitations you ran into. I am fairly certain we are willing to update the engine to meet the needs of the deployers, but knowing what those limitations are and what this new proposed engine provides that we don't (for this use case) is important. <div><br></div><div>--Morgan </div><div><br><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Sent via mobile</span></div></div></div></body></html>