Open Stack

Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Note that many of us have lamented the lack of an agreed upon
>> "architecture" in OpenStack. While Josh is right that Oslo often
>> facilitates many of our agreed upon technology choices, it doesn't really
>> shape the overall picture. We also have recently starting doing some
>> detailed cross-project sessions to discuss overall themes, but these
>> aren't necessarily architectural decisions, they're just optimizations
>> of similar concerns.
>
> Agreed, it's why also a ARB (or something with a different name) might
> be useful in the future somehow... Not saying I like more
> process/red-tape but yes many of us have lamented and I'm not sure of a
> better way to stop lamenting. Such a ARB (architecture review board)
> could at least start off being a ADB (architecture documenting board?)
> and fill in the gaps in documentation/understanding of what the
> (shared?) architectures actually are (with the help of PTLs I hope).
>
> Do note I tried to use as many 3 letter acronyms as I could, ha.

Yeah, starting the documention of best OpenStack design practices in the 
Project Team Guide has been on my todo list for a few months now...

Prompted by the discussion on DLM I thought she should at least document 
somewhere that OpenStack services can assume the presence of a database 
(oslo.db), a message queue (oslo.messaging) and soon a DLM. And then 
expand from there.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)