Mark, I'm not sure I understand what are implementation details in the workflow I have proposed in the email above, could you point to them?
Thanks, Eugene. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Mark McClain <mmccl...@yahoo-inc.com>wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I disagree on this point. I believe that the more implementation details > bleed into the API, the harder the API is to evolve and improve, and the > less flexible the API becomes. > > I'd personally love to see the next version of the LBaaS API be a > complete breakaway from any implementation specifics and refocus itself > to be a control plane API that is written from the perspective of the > *user* of a load balancing service, not the perspective of developers of > load balancer products. > > > I agree with Jay. We the API needs to be user centric and free of > implementation details. One of my concerns I've voiced in some of the IRC > discussions is that too many implementation details are exposed to the user. > > mark > > _______________________________________________ > 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
