On Dec 6, 2013, at 5:04 PM, Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Randall Burt's message of 2013-12-06 14:43:05 -0800: >> I too have warmed to this idea but wonder about the actual implementation >> around it. While I like where Edmund is going with this, I wonder if it >> wouldn't be valuable in the short-to-mid-term (I/J) to just add /templates >> to Glance (/assemblies, /applications, etc) along side /images. Initially, >> we could have separate endpoints and data structures for these different >> asset types, refactoring the easy bits along the way and leveraging the >> existing data storage and caching bits, but leaving more disruptive changes >> alone. That can get the functionality going, prove some concepts, and allow >> all of the interested parties to better plan a more general v3 api. >> > > +1 on bolting the different views for things on as new v2 pieces instead > of trying to solve the API genericism immediately. > > I would strive to make this a facade, and start immediately on making > Glance more generic under the hood. Otherwise these will just end up > as silos inside Glance instead of silos inside OpenStack.
Totally agreed. Where it makes sense to refactor we should do that rather than implementing essentially different services underneath. > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
