On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jesse Noller <jesse.nol...@rackspace.com>wrote:
> After speaking with people working on OSC and looking at the code base in > depth; I don’t think this addresses what Chris is implying: OSC wraps the > individual CLIs built by each project today, instead of the inverse: a > common backend that the individual CLIs can wrap - the latter is an > important distinction as currently, building a single binary install of OSC > for say, Windows is difficult given the dependency tree incurred by each of > the wrapped CLIs, difference in dependencies, structure, etc. > OSC is the top of the cake and was the most beneficial to user experience so it went first. I would love to consume fewer libraries and dependencies, so much that I still have a project to do this in a language that can easily ship a single binary client. What I think we're talking about here is the bottom of the cake and eliminating duplication and accumulated cruft from repeated forking and later direction changes. The creamy gooey middle is the API-specific bits that right stay exactly where they are (for now??) and can continue to ship a stand-alone cli if they wish. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
