weizhouapache commented on PR #12737: URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/12737#issuecomment-4890604031
> @weizhouapache @sudo87 , this came probably a bit early to be an extension type. Would it make sense to still invest in it, or to create a second phase where it can be implemented as extension? @DaanHoogland Thanks for the suggestion. In my opinion, an external orchestration model for DNS is certainly feasible (e.g., via a generic DnsExtensionProvider that executes Python/shell scripts or other external tooling implementing the same DnsProvider contract). However, DNS operations are comparatively simpler than VM, network, or storage orchestration. They are mostly CRUD-style operations (zones and records) without complex state machines or deep lifecycle management. Because of that, implementing DNS providers directly in Java as part of CloudStack is not particularly complex. At the same time, a Java-based provider model is more consistent with existing CloudStack extension patterns and avoids introducing an additional execution layer (script-based dispatch), which can add operational overhead and reduce type safety and debuggability compared to native implementations. So my view is that a Java DNS provider framework is the more natural fit for CloudStack, while an external execution-based provider model remains feasible for environments that specifically require script-based integration. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
