On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:26 AM, rezroo <openst...@roodsari.us> wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > I understand that this is how it is now. My question is how bad would it be > to wrap the Barbican client library calls in another class and claim, for > all practical purposes, that Magnum has no direct dependency on Barbican? > What is the negative of doing that? > > Anyone who wants to use another mechanism should be able to do that with a > simple change to the Magnum conf file. Nothing more complicated. That's the > essence of my question.
For us, the main reason we’d want to be able to deploy without Barbican is mostly to lower the initial barrier of entry. We’re not running anything else that would require Barbican for a multi-node deployment, so for us to do a realistic evaluation of Magnum, we’d have to get two “new to us” services up and running in a development environment. Since we’re not running Barbican or Magnum, that’s a big time commitment for something we don’t really know if we’d end up using. From that perspective, something that’s less secure might be just fine in the short term. For example, I’d be completely fine with storing certificates in the Magnum database as part of an evaluation, knowing I had to switch from that before going to production. __________________________________________________________________________ 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
