Re: [Netstack] [Quantum] plugin -> backend

2012-07-31 Thread Willian Molinari
Sheng Gong; Willian Molinari; OpenStack Development Mailing List; netstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Netstack] [Quantum] plugin -> backend Yes, we've had this discussion many times :) I agree that people find the term "plugin" confusing, but each time we've talk

Re: [Netstack] [Quantum] plugin -> backend

2012-07-30 Thread Dan Wendlandt
. > > ** ** > > *From:* netstack-bounces+snaiksat=cisco@lists.launchpad.net [mailto: > netstack-bounces+snaiksat=cisco@lists.launchpad.net] *On Behalf Of *Yong > Sheng Gong > *Sent:* Monday, July 30, 2012 7:05 PM > *To:* Willian Molinari > *Cc:* OpenStack Development

Re: [Netstack] [Quantum] plugin -> backend

2012-07-30 Thread Sumit Naiksatam (snaiksat)
, July 30, 2012 7:05 PM To: Willian Molinari Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List; netstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Netstack] [Quantum] plugin -> backend Hi, Add it into openstack-dev and [quantum] into the subject. Yes, 'backend' seems better than 'plugin' for our

Re: [Netstack] [Quantum] plugin -> backend

2012-07-30 Thread Yong Sheng Gong
Hi,Add it into openstack-dev and [quantum] into the subject.Yes, 'backend' seems better than 'plugin' for our case here.Our plugin is a must for quantum server to work,  while 'plugin' tends to make us think it will provide more functionalities if we plug it in.And I don't think our plugin is 'plu