On 09:27 Dec 09, John Griffith wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Li, Xiaoyan <xiaoyan...@intel.com> wrote:
<snip> > > As a result, this raises two concerns here: > > 1. Let such operations behavior same in Cinder. > > 2. I prefer to let storage driver decide the dependencies, not in the > > general core codes. > > > > I have and always will strongly disagree with this approach and your > proposal. Sadly we've already started to allow more and more vendor > drivers just "do their own thing" and implement their own special API > methods. This is in my opinion a horrible path and defeats the entire > purpose of have a Cinder abstraction layer. > > This will make it impossible to have compatibility between clouds for those > that care about it, it will make it impossible for operators/deployers to > understand exactly what they can and should expect in terms of the usage of > their cloud. Finally, it will also mean that not OpenStack API > functionality is COMPLETELY dependent on backend device. I know people are > sick of hearing me say this, so I'll keep it short and say it one more time: > "Compatibility in the API matters and should always be our priority" +1 -- Mike Perez __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
