Open Stack

Yes, we've had this discussion many times :)  I agree that people find the
term "plugin" confusing, but each time we've talked about it, we've failed
to find a single term that is substantially better to warrant the confusion
likely to be caused by renaming.

In some cases I've started using the term "engine" when describing the
plugin concept to people, since its really about a "pluggable backend" that
powers the generic quantum API layer.  The name "driver" was very
intentionally not chosen, as driver implies that it is specific to a
particular type of back-end device, whereas a Quantum plugin is really more
about an overall strategy of creating logical networks, etc.  For example,
you could have a generic VLAN plugin that has drivers to talk to many
different types of switches.

Dan

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Sumit Naiksatam (snaiksat) <
snaiksat at cisco.com> wrote:

>  Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> I believe there are two topics of discussion here, one of which is the
> terminology. The way things are implemented today, I agree that the
> “plugin” terminology seems a bit confusing. However, probably the bigger
> topic of discussion is what kind of a design is preferable, “backend”
> versus “plugin”? As Yong points out, today’s Quantum service completely
> relies on the plugin for providing all functionality, including
> functionality that is probably common across plugins (like state management
> of logical resources, IPAM, etc.). Going forward, would it make sense to
> push some of the common functionality into the Quantum service, and have
> plugins which actually behave like the name suggests?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ~Sumit.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* netstack-bounces+snaiksat=cisco.com at lists.launchpad.net [mailto:
> netstack-bounces+snaiksat=cisco.com at lists.launchpad.net] *On Behalf Of *Yong
> Sheng Gong
> *Sent:* Monday, July 30, 2012 7:05 PM
> *To:* Willian Molinari
> *Cc:* OpenStack Development Mailing List; netstack at lists.launchpad.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Netstack] [Quantum] plugin -> backend****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,
> Add it into openstack-dev and [quantum] into the subject.
>
> Yes, 'backend' seems better than 'plugin' for our case here.
>
> Our plugin is a must for quantum server to work,  while 'plugin' tends to
> make us think it will provide more functionalities if we plug it in.
> And I don't think our plugin is 'pluggable backend'.  I prefer to call it
> 'replaceable or configurable' 'backend' or 'dirver'.
>
> Thanks
> Yong Sheng Gong
>
>
>
> -----netstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm.com at lists.launchpad.net wrote: -----*
> ***
>
> To: "netstack at lists.launchpad.net" <netstack at lists.launchpad.net>
> <netstack at lists.launchpad.net> <netstack at lists.launchpad.net>
> From: Willian Molinari
> Sent by: netstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm.com at lists.launchpad.net
> Date: 07/31/2012 07:26AM
> Subject: [Netstack] plugin -> backend****
>
> Æ!!
>
> Hi folks!
>
> I was concerned to bring the "plugins" discussion because it looks like a
> bikeshedding
> and it probably was discussed before, but I think it will be beneficial at
> all.
>
> What motivated me to bring the discussion was the Metaplugin
> implementation
> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/10181/) that looks like a quantum
> backend implementing
> support for plugins.
>
> When we first looked into quantum we thought that quantum plugin was
> following the same
> concept of all other plugins (ie we should install a lot of plugins to
> enhance the application)
>  but we found that this is not the concept of quantum plugins, talking to
> Dan about this at
> the openstack summit I found the real concept of quantum plugins and I
> heard some people
> saying that plugins should be something like a "pluggable backend", so why
> not to call the
> plugin just "backend"?
>
> Looks natural to have just one backend at time and this backend should
> handle multiple
> plugins if needed (the metaplugin case).
>
> Sorry for bringing a non-technical discussion like this but every time
> someone asks me to
> explain what quantum does I need to show plugins as "backends" to make
> sense.
>
> I'm the only guy that think it's confusing? :P
>
> Just want to hear your ideas about this topic. ****
>
> --
> Willian Molinari
> (a.k.a PotHix)****
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack
> Post to     : netstack at lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp****
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack
> Post to     : netstack at lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Wendlandt
Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com
twitter: danwendlandt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20120730/c736efd2/attachment.html>