We discussed it internally a few days ago, and even created some
tickets for future work. The swift object versioning has some
differences from the s3 one, and our plan at the moment is have the s3
working first and only then do swift.
Yehuda
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Cedric Lemarchand wr
Not implementing the swift object versioning api doesn't mean that the
s3 implementation is not going to be available through swift. It means
that we don't implement the unique swift behavior which diverges from
s3. Specifically I'm pointing at the rollback-like behavior on object
removal that, as
Thanks Yehuda.
If you have to make a technology choice, at equal features, between S3
and Swift, considering the stability and robustness, what it would be ?
I ask because I think you have a whole and precise vision about S3 and
Swift, which I havn't, "yet" ;-)
Cheers !
Le 27/04/2014 17:04, Yeh
Cédric,
See http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8221
The S3 and Swift APIs handle versioning very differently, so we'll
implement S3 in the Giant time frame and consider how to handle Swift once
that's completed.
Ian Colle
Director of Engineering
Inktank
On Sunday, April 27, 2014, Cedric Lemarchand
By digging a bit more I found a part of the answer :
http://wiki.ceph.com/Planning/Blueprints/Firefly/rgw%3A_object_versioning
Are there any future plans for swift ?
Thanks
--
Cédric
Le 23/04/2014 21:55, Cedric Lemarchand a écrit :
> Hi Cephers,
>
> I would like to know if is the swift object
