Open Stack

You're right re: extensions are possible regardless of an explicit
mechanism. What I was trying to point out is I have to wonder if it's
really being used in the spirit of the extension mechanism (with intent to
promote) or as a way to say you have code in the tree and co-opt the API.

Also, I meant vendor-specific as in "This only works on X because they're
the only ones with the implementation." Just throwing things out, don't
know if it's a problem off hand.

Sounds like we're on the same page, though :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge Williams <jorge.williams at rackspace.com>
Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
<openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:33 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Novaclient and Extensions

>(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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev