On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 August 2014 10:56, Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to >> use the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated >> into the neutron project. If someone uses the current APIs, the group policy >> plugin will make sure they don't violate any policy constraints before >> passing the request into the regular core/service plugins. > > > This is the statement that makes me trip over, and I don't understand why > GBP and Neutron Core need to be 'integrated' together as they have. Policy > decision points can be decentralized from the system under scrutiny, we > don't need to have one giant monolithic system that does everything; it's an > architectural decision that would make difficult to achieve composability > and all the other good -ilities of software systems. >
Adding the GBP extension to Neutron does not change the nature of the software architecture of Neutron making it more or less monolithic. It fulfills a gap that is currently present in the Neutron API, namely - to complement the current imperative abstractions with a app -developer/deployer friendly declarative abstraction [1]. To reiterate, it has been proposed as an “extension”, and not a replacement of the core abstractions or the way those are consumed. If this is understood and interpreted correctly, I doubt that there should be reason for concern. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89469 > _______________________________________________ > 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
