On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Huangtianhua <huangtian...@huawei.com> wrote: > The conditions function has been requested for a long time, and there have > been several previous discussions, which all ended up in debating the > implementation, and no result. > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84468/3/doc/source/template_guide/hot_spec.rst > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153771/1/specs/kilo/resource-enabled-meta-property.rst
And for a reason: this is a tricky issue, and introducing imperative constructs in a template can lead to bad practices. > I think we should focus on the simplest possible way(same as AWS) to meet the > user requirement, and follows the AWS, there is no doubt that we will get a > very good compatibility. > And the patches are good in-progress. I don't want everything back to zero:) > https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/heat+branch:master+topic:bp/support-conditions-function I don't say that you should scratch everything. I'm mostly OK with what has been done, with the exception of the top-level conditions section. Templates are our user interface, and we need to be very careful when we introduce new things. 3 years ago following AWS was the easy path because we didn't have much idea on what to do, but I believe we now have enough background to be more innovative. It's also slightly worrying that the spec "only" got 3 cores approving it, especially on such a touchy subject. I'm guilty as others to not have voiced my concerns then, though. -- Thomas __________________________________________________________________________ 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
