Open Stack

On 06/01/2016 03:50 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016, at 05:51 AM, Miles Gould wrote:
>> On 31/05/16 21:03, Timofei Durakov wrote:
>>> there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted
>>> to Newton(with spec[2]).
>>> The idea is to define state machines for operations as live-migration,
>>> resize, etc. and to deal with them operation states.
>>
>> +1 to introducing an explicit state machine - IME they make complex 
>> logic much easier to reason about. However, think carefully about how 
>> you'll make changes to that state machine later. In Ironic, this is an 
>> ongoing problem: every time we change the state machine, we have to 
>> decide whether to lie to older clients (and if so, what lie to tell 
>> them), or whether to present them with the truth (and if so, how badly 
>> they'll break). AIUI this would be a much smaller problem if we'd 
>> considered this possibility carefully at the beginning.
> 
> This is a great point. I think most people have an implicit assumption
> that the state machine will be exposed to end users via the API. I would
> like to avoid that for exactly the reason you've mentioned. Of course
> we'll want to expose something to users but whatever that is should be
> loosely coupled with the internal states that actually drive the system. 

+1billion