Joshua Harlow wrote:
Clint Byrum wrote:
Note that many of us have lamented the lack of an agreed upon
"architecture" in OpenStack. While Josh is right that Oslo often
facilitates many of our agreed upon technology choices, it doesn't really
shape the overall picture. We also have recently starting doing some
detailed cross-project sessions to discuss overall themes, but these
aren't necessarily architectural decisions, they're just optimizations
of similar concerns.
Agreed, it's why also a ARB (or something with a different name) might
be useful in the future somehow... Not saying I like more
process/red-tape but yes many of us have lamented and I'm not sure of a
better way to stop lamenting. Such a ARB (architecture review board)
could at least start off being a ADB (architecture documenting board?)
and fill in the gaps in documentation/understanding of what the
(shared?) architectures actually are (with the help of PTLs I hope).
Do note I tried to use as many 3 letter acronyms as I could, ha.
Yeah, starting the documention of best OpenStack design practices in the
Project Team Guide has been on my todo list for a few months now...
Prompted by the discussion on DLM I thought she should at least document
somewhere that OpenStack services can assume the presence of a database
(oslo.db), a message queue (oslo.messaging) and soon a DLM. And then
expand from there.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
__________________________________________________________________________
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
