Open Stack

Hi Eugene,

On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:10 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Jorge Miramontes
> <jorge.miramontes at rackspace.com> wrote:
>         Hey Eugene,
>         
>         
>         I think there is a misunderstanding on what iterative
>         development means to you and me and I want to make sure we are
>         on the same page. First of all, I'll try not to use the term
>         "duct-taping" even though it's a widely used term in the
>         industry. 
> I'm not against the term itself. 
> It was applied several times to existing code base, apparently without
> ANY real code analysis.
> That's especially clearly seen because all API proposals so far are
> focusing on managing the same set of lb primitives.
> Yes, the proposals introduce some new primitives; yes some attributes
> and relationships differ from what is in the code. 
> But nothing was proposed so far that would require to completely throw
> away existing code, not a single requirement.
Just to make it clear, no one said the existing code base was duct taped
together.  What happened was that you pushed that object model
improvements blueprint into the neutron-specs the same time that Stephen
sent out his API proposal.  This made it seem like that no discussion or
analysis of the existing object model was going to take place and verify
that the existing object model would work with either of the API
proposals.  So we were saying that duct-taping the API on top of the
existng object model was not a good idea if the existing object model
did not fit well.  This would result in more duct-taping and so forth.
I'm sure we've all been in a maintenance nightmare where the code is
duct-taped together and one minor change causes major issues.

We wanted a discussion to happen on whether the existing object model
would work with both API proposals.  That blueprint being pushed to
gerrit the same time as Stephen mailing out his proposal made it seem
like this was not going to happen.  No one ever said the existing code
was duct-taped together, and I am sorry you got that impression.

Thanks,
Brandon