On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:39 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
> The important thing is that code talks. If you want WADLs (or your flavor of
> WADLs), make them! Stop trying to architect systems for architects. These
> things are meant to be used. Let's focus on what is necessary for getting a
> reliable system into the hands of those who will be using it.
This distills the discussion to its essence. Code talks. What we're all
dancing around is who decides what that code is going to say. Do the developers
decide this as they create the actual product, and then have that product
documented after the fact? Or do some "architects" (god, do I hate that term in
a software context!) decide ahead of time what the code is going to say, and
then it's up to the devs to make it so.
Swift had the advantage of starting out as a closed source project that
only had to serve a single master, and thus didn't need external orchestration
to keep it on track. Nova, OTOH, as a community development effort, essentially
had to be all things to all people, which is unworkable; hence the need for
some up-front design to keep some sort of focus to the development. The problem
is that this inevitably descends into bikeshedding, which has been prominently
on display in this thread.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
