Open Stack

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Caitlin Bestler <caitlin.bestler at nexenta.com
> wrote:

>  On 2/6/2013 1:31 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>
>
>  Entry points takes care of all of this. The code can live anywhere, and
> each entry point gets a nice, short, unique name to use in the
> configuration file. Developers can point to anything they want, and
> non-developers don't have to know class names. We all win.
>
>  Doug
>
>
> Entry points are certainly  more user friendly than raw classnames, but
> they are still an intrusion of internal architecture
> into the user domain. It is still making the user think of processing
> steps, rather than just objects to be stored.
>
> It may be sufficiently friendly that it is better than having two layers
> of configuration, but better labeling of the pipes
> does not change the fact that you are asking the end user to understand
> the plumbing.
>
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "making the user think of processing steps"
or "objects to be stored".

Let's use a concrete example. Monty's changes map names like "baremetal"
and "hyperv" to the virtualization drivers in nova. After the changes are
merged, the user could put "hyperv" in their configuration file instead of
"nova.virt.hyperv.HyperVDriver". That decouples the code organization from
the specification of which driver to use, although the driver does still
have to be named. It sounds like you have an idea to improve on that
further, to make it even easier for the user. How do you see that working?

Doug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130206/e7d2fcd5/attachment.html>