Thanks for the clarification.
On 2/28/18, 3:22 PM, "Akihiro Motoki" wrote:
Hi Gary,
You are talking about vender extension support in OSC, but this is
about python bindings.
I believe this is another topic. Commands implemented in OSC repo
already
Hi Gary,
You are talking about vender extension support in OSC, but this is
about python bindings.
I believe this is another topic. Commands implemented in OSC repo
already consumes OpenStack SDK, so the proposed change just increases
the number of python bindings supported in SDK.
Regarding the
One of the concerns here is that the openstack client does not enable one to
configure extensions that are not part of the core reference architecture. So
any external third part that tries to have any etension added will not be able
to leverage the openstack client. This is a major pain point.
On 02/26/2018 10:55 AM, Rabi Mishra wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Monty Taylor > wrote:
On 02/26/2018 09:57 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
Hi neutron and openstacksdk team,
This mail proposes to change the first
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 02/26/2018 09:57 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
>
>> Hi neutron and openstacksdk team,
>>
>> This mail proposes to change the first priority of neutron-related
>> python binding to OpenStack SDK rather than neutronclient
I also agree that it is good idea and I would be very happy to help with such
migration :)
—
Best regards
Slawek Kaplonski
sla...@kaplonski.pl
> Wiadomość napisana przez Monty Taylor w dniu
> 26.02.2018, o godz. 11:14:
>
> On 02/26/2018 09:57 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
On 02/26/2018 09:57 AM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
Hi neutron and openstacksdk team,
This mail proposes to change the first priority of neutron-related
python binding to OpenStack SDK rather than neutronclient python
bindings.
I think it is time to start this as OpenStack SDK became a official