Open Stack

On 11/19/2013 03:46 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 16 November 2013 08:31, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> and building on unstable Nova APIs. Anything which we accept is a part
>>> of OpenStack should not get randomly made unusable by one contributor
>>> while other contributors constantly have to scramble to catch up. Either
>>> stuff winds up being broken too often or we stifle progress in Nova
>>> because we're afraid to make breaking changes.
>>
>>
>> the ceilometer plugin for nova hit this, and had to be scrapped.  It hooked
>> into nova-compute and at one point made nova-compute hang there for minutes
>> at a time.
>>
>> I agree, that hooking into our underlying python APIs is a bad idea and a
>> recipe for disaster. But at the same time I do like having things live in a
>> separate repo, at the very least until they are mature enough to be pulled
>> into mainline.
>>
>> But if we do go with the separate repo solution, what are the issues with
>> proxying third party APIs on top of OpenStack REST APIs?  Using the REST
>> APIs would mean we have a stable contract for these third party APIs to
>> consume, and we also get more feedback about fixing our own API at the same
>> time.
>
> As long as the metadataservice doesn't move out :) - that one I think
> is pretty core and we have no native replacement [configdrive is not a
> replacement :P].

Slightly off tangent thread.

So we recently moved devstack gate to do con fig drive instead of 
metadata service, and life was good (no one really noticed). In what 
ways is configdrive insufficient compared to metadata service? And is 
that something that we should be tackling?

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net