On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 04:07:07PM +0200, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:44:02PM +0300, Dmitry Petuhov wrote: > > 10.08.2016 14:58, Dietmar Maurer пишет: > > > This is by intention - we want people to use open source software. > > ``Use open source software'' and ``patch Storage.pm on every update'' are > > little different things. > > > > Users are still free to share their code if it loads automatically, but > > autoload eases life if plugin if actively used, but not being included into > > PVE distrib for some reason. > > I see the point - but there would need to be some additional changes for > this to be accepted in my opionion: > > - there needs to be a way to output loaded plugins (for support / bug > triage, because loading third-party plugins would need to be > completely unsupported) > - there needs to be some kind of storage plugin API version mechanism to > disable loading of outdated/incompatible plugins (and storages using > those plugins) > > since all the existing supported storage plugins are part of one git > repository and one deb package, the latter was not needed so far. but if > such an autoloading mechanism were to be included, there would be a lot > of automatic breakage whenever the supported plugins get a new > method/new method parameter/return type change/.. which is used by > PVE::Storage, but no corresponding update was made to the third-party > plugin. such changes could then bump the minimum required API version in > PVE::Storage, and the plugins would need to have a corresponding > "implemented API" version. > > this does of course imply that the API is backwards compatible (i.e., a > newer plugin works with an older PVE::Storage), which might require a > cleanup of the existing plugins first.. which kind of returns us to > square one - do we want to do this additional work for something which > is essentially unsupported and whose main beneficiaries are proprietary > storage solution vendors (and their users)? I am not yet convinced that > this is something that I want to spend a lot of time and effort on, but > I am not opposed to merging such changes.
A simple check that the plugin's ->api_version() is == the current version would be fine IMO. If it changes, plugins have to be adapted. Not investing time in backward compatibility is an option after all ;-) Storages for which the plugin cannot be loaded would then simply disappear, which is fine. Better than data corruption due to an incompatible API for sure. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
