[openstack-dev] [placement] The "intended purpose" of traits

Bal√°zs Gibizer balazs.gibizer at ericsson.com
Fri Sep 28 14:41:58 UTC 2018

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Eric Fried <openstack at fried.cc> wrote:
> It's time somebody said this.
> Every time we turn a corner or look under a rug, we find another use
> case for provider traits in placement. But every time we have to have
> the argument about whether that use case satisfies the original
> "intended purpose" of traits.
> That's only reason I've ever been able to glean: that it (whatever 
> "it"
> is) wasn't what the architects had in mind when they came up with the
> idea of traits. We're not even talking about anything that would 
> require
> changes to the placement API. Just, "Oh, that's not a *capability* -
> shut it down."
> Bubble wrap was originally intended as a textured wallpaper and a
> greenhouse insulator. Can we accept the fact that traits have (many,
> many) uses beyond marking capabilities, and quit with the arbitrary
> restrictions?

How far are we willing to go? Does an arbitrary (key: value) pair 
encoded in a trait name like key_`str(value)` (e.g. 
CURRENT_TEMPERATURE: 85 encoded as CUSTOM_TEMPERATURE_85) something we 
would be OK to see in placement?


> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: 
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list